Wakilii

Nakate v Farming Consultant and Management company Limited (FACOM) and 3 Others (Civil Suit No. 499 of 2019)

High Court · [2021] UGHCCD 41 · 2021 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 unjust enrichment, proceeding ex parte against 1st and 2nd defendants after failure to appear, and against 3rd and 4th defendants who filed no defence
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff with full refund of money paid, general and aggravated damages, interest, and costs

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases applied in 2 Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

Good law Followed in 0 cases and applied in 2 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. Citations rising — 7 citing cases on record, 7 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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

The High Court held that the defendants breached multiple contracts for large-scale cassava farming by failing to plant cassava despite receiving UGX 145,000,000 from the plaintiff, and that their conduct constituted fraud and unjust enrichment. The court ordered a full refund of the money paid, awarded general damages of UGX 20,000,000, aggravated damages of UGX 5,000,000, and interest at 20% from the date of filing until payment in full.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff with full refund of money paid, general and aggravated damages, interest, and costs

Facts

In August 2017, the plaintiff heard the 2nd defendant on Radio One advertising a large-scale cassava farming opportunity through the 1st defendant company. The plaintiff met with the 2nd defendant and entered into three separate agreements: an oral agreement for UGX 4,800,000, a written contract with the 3rd and 4th defendants (presented as employees of the 1st defendant) for UGX 69,000,000 to hire 60 acres at Nakabululu, and a second contract with the 1st and 2nd defendants for UGX 70,000,000 to hire 50 acres at Mazzi Kikyusa. The plaintiff also paid UGX 1,200,000 in survey fees. Despite total payments of UGX 145,000,000, no cassava was ever planted. On her final visit, the plaintiff found maize instead of cassava. The 1st and 2nd defendants filed a defence but failed to attend court, and the 3rd and 4th defendants filed no defence.

Issues

  1. Whether there was breach of contract by the defendants.
  2. Whether the defendants should unjustly benefit from the payments extracted from the plaintiff.
  3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the remedies sought.

Orders

  • Judgment for the plaintiff.
  • Defendants to refund UGX 145,000,000 being money had and received.
  • General damages of UGX 20,000,000 awarded to the plaintiff.
  • Aggravated damages of UGX 5,000,000 awarded to the plaintiff.
  • Interest at 20% per annum on the principal sum from the date of filing the suit until payment in full.
  • Counterclaim dismissed.
  • Costs of the suit and counterclaim awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Elements and Consequences
Once a contract is valid, it creates reciprocal rights and obligations between the parties. When one party fails to perform its obligations or performs them in a manner inconsistent with the agreement, that party is in breach and the innocent party is entitled to a remedy.
Contract Law — Fraud and Misrepresentation — Intentional Deceit to Induce Contract
Fraud is an intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another to part with something valuable or surrender a legal right. Where parties deliberately misrepresent the nature of a business and extract payments with no intention to deliver on contractual obligations, their conduct constitutes fraud.
Contract Law — Commercial Contracts — Interpretation According to Commercial Purpose
In interpreting a commercial contract, the court must know the commercial purpose of the contract, which presupposes knowledge of the genesis of the transaction, the background, the context, and the market in which the parties are operating. If detailed semantic analysis leads to a conclusion that flouts business common sense, it must yield to business common sense.
Tort Law — Unjust Enrichment — Prerequisites for Recovery
For a case to qualify as unjust enrichment, three prerequisites must be identified: first, the defendant has been enriched by the receipt of a benefit; secondly, this enrichment is at the expense of the plaintiff; and thirdly, the retention of the enrichment is unjust. Money paid on a consideration which has wholly failed is recoverable as money had and received.
Tort Law — Damages — General Damages for Breach of Contract
The purpose of an award of damages, and in particular general damages, is to put the plaintiff in the position he or she would have been in had the contract been performed. Damages are compensatory in relation to the loss suffered on account of the breach of contract.
Tort Law — Aggravated Damages — Conduct Exacerbating Injury
Aggravated damages are compensatory but exceed ordinary damages in that they are intended to compensate the plaintiff for injury that has been exacerbated by the motives or conduct of the defendant. Where damages are at large, the court may take into account factors such as malice, arrogance, or conduct designed to deceive and cause humiliation or distress.
Civil Procedure — Interest on Judgment Debt — Discretion of Court
Under section 26(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, the court has discretion to award interest on the principal sum adjudged from the date of filing the suit to the date of the decree at such rate as the court deems reasonable, taking into account that the defendant has used the plaintiff's money to the plaintiff's detriment.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (13)

  • William Kasozi v DFCU Bank Ltd (Civil Suit No. 1326 of 2000)
  • Ronald Kasibante v Shell Uganda Ltd (Civil Suit No. 542 of 2006)
  • Fredrick Zaabwe v Orient Bank and Others (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006)
  • Godfrey Magezi and Another v Sudhir Ruparelia (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2001)
  • Reardon Smith Line Ltd v Hansen Tangen [1976] 1 WLR 989
  • Atom Outdoor Limited v Arrow Centre (U) Ltd (Civil Suit No. 448 of 2003)
  • Miramar Maritime Corporation v Holborn Oil Trading Ltd [1984] AC 676
  • Mahabir Kishore & Madhvani Paradesh 1990 AIR 313
  • Dr James Kashugyera Tumwine and Another v Sr Willie Magara and Another (Civil Suit No. 576 of 2004)
  • Joseph Muluuta v Katama Silvano (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1999)
  • Hope Mukankusi v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2011)
  • African Field Epidemiology Network v Peter Wasswa Kityaba (Civil Appeal No. 124 of 2017)
  • Obongo v Kisumu Council [1971] EA 91

Cases citing this judgment (5)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nakate v Farming Consultant and Management company Limited (FACOM) and 3 Others (Civil Suit No. 499 of 2019) [2021] UGHCCD 41 (15 June 2021)
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.