Wakilii

Nangunga Livestock Co-operative Society Ltd v M/s Energo Project Corporation (Civil Suit No.207 of 1993)

High Court · [1994] UGHC 23 · 1994 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 arising from non-payment for goods supplied
Decision
Judgment entered for plaintiff with payment of contract price and general damages for breach, plus 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 plaintiff proved on a balance of probabilities that it supplied 30 tons of beans and 20 tons of maize to the defendant pursuant to a tender acceptance letter, that the defendant received the goods, and that the defendant breached the contract by failing to pay. The defendant failed to discharge its burden of proving that the signatory to the tender letter was not in Uganda at the material time. General damages were awarded according to the Hadley v Baxendale principle of reasonable contemplation at contract formation.

Outcome

Judgment entered for plaintiff with payment of contract price and general damages for breach, plus interest and costs

Facts

The plaintiff, a co-operative society, delivered 30.767 tons of beans valued at Shs. 4,500,000 and 20.559 tons of maize valued at Shs. 2,500,000 to the defendant's construction site at Kiganda, Mityana, on 15 and 22 November 1991 respectively, pursuant to a tender acceptance letter dated 5 November 1991 signed by one Dragon Mihajlovic as manager. The defendant failed to pay within the stipulated 14 days despite repeated demands. The defendant denied receiving the goods and claimed the signatory was not in Uganda at the time. The plaintiff's treasurer and a former mechanic employed by the defendant testified to the deliveries. Immigration records showed Dragon Mihajlovic arrived in Uganda on 15 January 1992, after the tender letter date. The defendant did not call Dragon as a witness despite his centrality to the dispute.

Issues

  1. Whether there was a request by the defendant for supply of goods or alternatively whether the plaintiff applied to the defendant to supply the goods.
  2. Whether the said application to supply was accepted by the defendant.
  3. Whether the goods were actually supplied.
  4. What remedies are available to the plaintiff?

Orders

  • Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff.
  • Payment of Shs. 7,000,000 for the price of commodities supplied.
  • General damages for breach of contract fixed at Shs. 2,000,000.
  • Interest on both sums at court rates from the date of delivery of judgment.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Burden of Proof — Shifting of Evidential Burden — Duty to Call Witnesses
Where a plaintiff adduces evidence establishing a prima facie case and the defendant raises an affirmative defence, the evidential burden shifts to the defendant to adduce evidence of the facts constituting that defence. Where a party fails to call a witness within their power to call who is central to a disputed fact, the court may draw an adverse inference.
Contract Law — Sale of Goods — Action for Price — Section 49 Sale of Goods Act
Under section 49 of the Sale of Goods Act Cap 79, where a buyer wrongly neglects or refuses to pay for goods in accordance with the terms of the contract, the seller may maintain an action against the buyer for the price of the goods.
Damages & Quantum — Breach of Contract — Remoteness — Hadley v Baxendale Principle
Damages for breach of contract should be such as may fairly and reasonably be considered as arising naturally according to the usual course of things from the breach, or such as may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of both parties at the time they made the contract as the probable result of the breach. A party cannot recover damages for loss not within the reasonable contemplation of the parties at contract formation.
Evidence — Assessment of Testimony — Minor Inconsistencies
Only grave inconsistencies in a witness's evidence, if not satisfactorily explained, will usually result in rejection of that evidence. Minor inconsistencies will not have that effect unless they point to deliberate untruthfulness.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Co-operative Act 1963
  • Sale of Goods Act Cap 79 s.3
  • Sale of Goods Act Cap 79 s.49

Cases cited (3)

  • Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341
  • Leonard Anisath v R [1963] EA 206
  • Tajar's case EACA Cr. Application No. 167/1969 unreported

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nangunga Livestock Co-operative Society Ltd v M_s Energo Project Corporation (Civil Suit No.207 of 1993) [1994] UGHC 23 (16 August 1994)
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.