Wakilii

Nansukusa Margret v Kitta Pius (Civil Suit No. 212 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 1346 · 2025 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for breach of land sale agreement and rescission
Decision
Judgment entered for the Plaintiff; contract rescinded; Defendant ordered to pay outstanding balance and general damages with interest

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

The High Court held that the Defendant breached a land sale agreement by failing to pay the balance of UGX 20,000,000 within the stipulated one-month period. Time was found to be of the essence. The contract was rescinded under section 53 of the Contracts Act. The Defendant was ordered to pay the outstanding balance with interest at 10% per annum from the date of filing, plus general damages of UGX 5,000,000 with interest from judgment. Vacant possession was denied due to third-party occupation observed at locus.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the Plaintiff; contract rescinded; Defendant ordered to pay outstanding balance and general damages with interest

Facts

On 17 July 2023, the Plaintiff and Defendant executed a land sale agreement for land at Nsuube, Wakiso District, at a purchase price of UGX 35,000,000. The Defendant paid a deposit of UGX 15,000,000, with the balance of UGX 20,000,000 due within one month, by 17 August 2023. The Defendant failed to pay the balance on the due date. The Plaintiff placed a sign on the land stating it was not for sale and attempted to contact the Defendant without success. The Defendant did not appear at trial. At locus, the court observed coffee, cassava, bananas, two houses under construction, and building materials on the land.

Issues

  1. Whether the Defendant is in breach of land sale agreement dated 17th day of July, 2023 executed between the parties in respect of the suit land?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • A declaration that the Defendant is in breach of the land sale agreement dated 17th July 2023 in respect of the Plaintiff's beneficial interest in land located at Nsuube LC1, Lukwanga Parish, Busiro East Constituency, Wakiso District.
  • The land sale agreement dated 17th July 2023 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is hereby rescinded.
  • The Defendant is ordered to pay the outstanding balance of UGX 20,000,000 to the Plaintiff together with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of filing of the suit, until full payment.
  • General damages of UGX 5,000,000 at an interest rate of 10% from the date of Judgment and until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Formation and Validity — Written Agreement as Best Evidence
Where the terms of a contract for the disposition of property have been reduced into writing, no evidence may be given in proof of those terms except the document itself under section 91 of the Evidence Act. The written agreement is the best and only admissible evidence of the obligations undertaken by each party.
Performance — Binding Nature of Signed Contracts
When a document containing contractual terms is signed, in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation, the party signing it is bound by its terms. Once parties freely enter a valid contract, each undertakes binding duties that must be honoured unless excused by law.
Breach — Time of the Essence
Under section 46(1) of the Contracts Act, where a party promises to do a certain thing at or before a specified time but fails to do so, the contract becomes voidable at the option of the promisee if the intention of the parties was that time was of the essence. Time is essential if the parties expressly stipulate that it shall be so, or if the conduct of the parties demonstrates that timely performance was fundamental to the bargain.
Breach — Failure to Perform Within Stipulated Time
Failure to pay the balance of a purchase price within the agreed time, where time is of the essence, constitutes a fundamental breach of a sale agreement. Unsubstantiated allegations in pleadings, unsupported by evidence, cannot excuse non-performance of clear contractual obligations.
Rescission — Effect and Restoration of Benefits
Under section 53 of the Contracts Act, where a contract is voidable at the option of one party, that party is legally entitled to rescind it. Once rescission is effected, both parties are released from further performance, and any benefits received under the agreement must be restored. The effect of rescission is to reverse all actions taken in the formation of the contract, restoring the parties to the position they were in prior to the contract.
Vacant Possession — Discretion Where Third Parties in Occupation
Where a locus visit reveals that third parties are in occupation of land and have established interests or ongoing developments, it would not be equitable to order vacant possession without those parties being before the court. The more appropriate remedy is to enforce the contract by ordering payment of the outstanding purchase price rather than summarily evicting persons whose interests were not fully canvassed.
Damages — Assessment of General Damages for Breach
In assessing general damages for breach of contract, courts are guided by the value of the subject matter, the economic inconvenience suffered by the innocent party, and the nature and extent of the breach. The aim is to put the plaintiff in the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (18)

  • Zainabu Nagudi v Cheborion Yofisi & 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 103 of 2018)
  • Kemigisa Sandra v Wamani Hussein (High Court Civil Appeal No. 06 of 2022)
  • Printing and Numerical Registering Co. v Simpson (1875) LR 19 Eq 462
  • Foster V Mackinnon (1869) L.R. 4 C.P. 704
  • Kyarimpa Sarah v Harriet Hewett (HCCS No. 0794 of 2016)
  • William Kasozi v DFCU Bank (HCCS No. 1326 of 2000)
  • Miller v Minister of Pensions (1947) 2 ALLER 372
  • Dr. Vincent Karuhanga T/A Friends Polyclinic Vs National Insurance Corporation and Uganda Revenue Authority [2008] HCB 151
  • Lancaster Vs Blackwell Colliery Co. Ltd 1918 WC Rep 345
  • Sebuliba Vs Cooperative Bank Ltd [1982] HCB 130
  • Cargo World Logistics Limited v Royale Group Africa Limited (HCCS No. 157 of 2013)
  • Michael Katungye v Fred Byamukama & Another (HCCS No. 706 of 2020)
  • Ronald Kasibante v Shell Uganda Ltd (HCCS No. 542 of 2006)
  • Bimba Agro Livestock Company Limited V. Landmark University (2020) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1748) 465
  • Sharif Osman v Hajji Haruna Mulangwa (SCCA No. 38 of 1995)
  • Sal Oil Limited v Kiritkumar Bhikhulal Shah and Others (2025 UGHC 672)
  • Charles Acire v Myaana Engola (HCCS No. 143 of 1993)
  • Uganda Development Bank Vs Muganga Construction Co. Ltd (1981) H.C.B 35

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nansukusa Margret v Kitta Pius (Civil Suit No. 212 of 2025) [2025] UGHC 1346 (28 November 2025)
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.