Wakilii

Nagitta Edisa v Chongqing International Construction Corporation Limited (Civil Suit No. 402 of 2023)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCD 68 · 2026 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for breach of contract and negligence
Decision
Judgment entered for plaintiff with damages, specific performance order, interest, and costs

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

Held that the defendant breached a murram extraction agreement by failing to rehabilitate the land as contractually required, leaving a hazardous open pit. The defendant was also negligent in abandoning the excavation site, which caused foreseeable harm including stagnant water accumulation, mosquito breeding, community access obstruction, and a drowning death. The plaintiff was awarded general damages of UGX 100,000,000, an order for specific performance requiring backfilling within 90 days, interest at 8% per annum, and costs.

Outcome

Judgment entered for plaintiff with damages, specific performance order, interest, and costs

Facts

The plaintiff owned private mailo land in Wakiso District. On 15 March 2021, she entered a two-year tenancy agreement with the defendant for murram extraction. The agreement required the defendant to backfill the excavated area with black soil, reinstate grass cover, and return the land upon expiry. The defendant extracted murram but abandoned the site without rehabilitation, leaving a large open pit. The pit accumulated stagnant water which drained into the plaintiff's adjacent stone quarry, bred mosquitoes causing malaria, obstructed community access, and caused property loss. In June 2023, a resident drowned in the pit. The plaintiff incurred burial expenses and faced community hostility. Despite repeated requests, the defendant refused to rehabilitate the land. The defendant filed a written statement of defense denying breach and alleging it had restored the land, but did not appear at trial or adduce evidence.

Issues

  1. Whether the Defendant is in breach of the contract?
  2. Whether the Defendant is negligent?
  3. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The Defendant pays to the Plaintiff general damages in the sum of UGX 100,000,000 for the breach of contract, negligence, and the resultant pain, suffering, and loss suffered.
  • An order for Specific Performance compelling the Defendant to restore and backfill the excavated pit with soil within ninety (90) days from the date of this judgment.
  • Should the defendant fail to backfill and restore the land as ordered within the 90 days, the plaintiff shall use any other means to restore the land and pass the bill (whatever the amount) to the Defendant for refund.
  • Interest on general damages shall be paid at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of this judgment until payment in full.
  • The Defendant shall pay the costs of this suit to the Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Fundamental Terms — Failure to Perform Rehabilitation Obligation
Where a contract for murram extraction expressly requires the contractor to rehabilitate the land by backfilling and reinstating grass cover upon completion, and the contractor abandons the excavation site without performing this obligation, the contractor is in breach of a fundamental term of the contract entitling the innocent party to treat the contract as discharged.
Tort Law — Negligence — Duty of Care — Excavation and Land Restoration
A construction corporation undertaking murram extraction on private land owes a duty of care to the landowner and neighbouring residents to avoid acts or omissions which it can reasonably foresee would be likely to cause injury, including the duty not to abandon an open excavation pit without rehabilitation.
Tort Law — Negligence — Foreseeability — Hazards from Abandoned Excavation
It is reasonably foreseeable that abandoning a large excavation pit without rehabilitation will create hazards including stagnant water accumulation, mosquito breeding, obstruction of access to neighbouring land, and risk of drowning, and a reasonable construction corporation ought to have such consequences in contemplation.
Contract Law — Remedies — Specific Performance — Land Rehabilitation
Where a defendant has contractually undertaken to rehabilitate land by backfilling an excavated pit and has failed to do so, specific performance is the appropriate remedy given that land possesses unique and special value and monetary compensation alone may not adequately restore the plaintiff to the position she would have been in had the contract been performed.
Civil Procedure — Default — Failure to Adduce Evidence — Effect on Pleadings
Where a defendant files a written statement of defense but fails to attend court or adduce evidence in support of its pleadings, the defendant's pleadings remain unsubstantiated statements of fact which have not been proved on a balance of probabilities, and the court may proceed to determine the suit notwithstanding the default under Order 17 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Breach of Contract and Negligence — Pain, Suffering, and Community Hostility
General damages are compensatory in nature and should restore some satisfaction, as far as money can do it, to the injured plaintiff for losses including psychological torture, stress, community hatred, and loss of use and enjoyment of land resulting from breach of contract and negligence.
Damages & Quantum — Mesne Profits — Proof Required — Constructive Occupation
Mesne profits, being in the nature of special damages, must be specifically pleaded and proved with evidence as to the quantum of profits the plaintiff might have earned from the land during the period of constructive occupation; in the absence of such proof, no specific award for mesne profits can be made, though loss of use may be considered in the award of general damages.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (14)

  • Greenboat Entertainment Ltd v City Council of Kampala (Civil Suit No. 580 of 2003)
  • Malinga Sulaiman & 3 Others v Black Market Records (Civil Suit No. 864 of 2021)
  • Ronald Kasibante v Shell (U) Ltd (Civil Suit No. 542 of 2006)
  • Kalemera Godfrey & 3 Others v Unilever Uganda Limited & Another (Civil Suit No. 1181 of 1997)
  • Omony Rogers v Attorney General & Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Suit No. 27 of 2002)
  • Takiya Kashwahiri & Another v Kajungu Denis (Civil Appeal No. 85 of 2011)
  • Hon. Ababiku Jesca v Eriyo Jesca Osuna (Miscellaneous Application No. 4 of 2015)
  • Media Airtime Limited v Uganda Broadcasting Corporation (Civil Suit No. 752 of 2008)
  • Bunge Corporation v Tradax Export SA [1981] 2 ALL ER 523
  • Apwoyorwot v Attorney General & Another (Civil Suit No. 21 of 2020)
  • Stanley Kamihanda v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 1201 of 1998)
  • Stanley Bainebabo v Abaho Tumushabe (Civil Appeal No. 49 of 2021)
  • Kimosho v Wakapita & 2 Others (Civil Suit No. 385 of 2014)
  • VAS Garage v MTN Uganda (High Court decision)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Nagitta Edisa v Chongqing International Construction Corporation Limited (Civil Suit No. 402 of 2023) [2026] UGHCCD 68 (19 March 2026)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.