Wakilii

Nassimu Moses and Another v Mugambe Sam (Civil Suit No. 68 of 2023)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 476 · 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 contract and fraud, heard exparte after defendant failed to file defence
Decision
Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiffs with orders for refund of purchase price, general damages, and costs

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (treatment unverified) 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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 2 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. 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

Held that the defendant breached the land sale agreement by selling the suit land to third parties after receiving part payment from the plaintiffs. The defendant's conduct constituted fraud as he deliberately deprived the plaintiffs of their equitable interest in the land. The court ordered the defendant to refund UGX 45,500,000 paid by the plaintiffs and awarded general damages of UGX 20,000,000 plus costs.

Outcome

Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiffs with orders for refund of purchase price, general damages, and costs

Facts

On 4 November 2019, the plaintiffs entered into a land sale agreement with the defendant to purchase 10 acres of land comprised in Block 66 Plot 34 at Bubengwa for UGX 65,000,000. The plaintiffs paid UGX 32,500,000 on the day of signing and a further UGX 13,000,000 on 15 August 2020, leaving a balance of UGX 19,500,000. In October 2020, when the plaintiffs contacted the defendant to pay the remaining balance, they discovered he had sold the suit land to several other people. Multiple police cases had been filed against the defendant for similar conduct. The defendant promised to refund the money paid but failed to do so and ceased communication with the plaintiffs. The defendant was served with summons but failed to file a defence, and the matter proceeded exparte.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant breached the contract of sale of the suit land dated 4th November 2019.
  2. Whether the defendant committed fraud.
  3. What are the available remedies to the parties?

Orders

  • Declaration that the defendant acted fraudulently when he sold the suit land to third parties after entering into a land sale agreement with the plaintiffs and receiving part payment of UGX 45,500,000.
  • Declaration that the defendant breached the land sale agreement when he sold the suit land to third parties.
  • The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs UGX 45,500,000 being the refund of money paid as consideration for the suit land.
  • The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs UGX 20,000,000 as general damages.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiffs.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Sale of Land — Vendor Selling to Third Parties During Subsisting Contract
Where a vendor enters into a binding land sale agreement with a purchaser, receives part payment, and agrees to receive the balance at a later stage, the vendor cannot turn around and sell the same land to other interested purchasers while the original contract remains in force. Doing so amounts to a breach of a crucial term of the contract.
Land & Property — Equitable Title — Passing of Title on Part Payment
In a contract of sale of land where only part payment has been effected, until legal title has passed to the purchaser, both the vendor and the purchaser have their own title to the land sold; the vendor holds legal title while the purchaser holds equitable title. The equitable title passes to the purchaser upon entering into the agreement and serves as insurance against potential mischief by the vendor. The purchaser's equitable title is superior to the vendor's legal title as a right in personam.
Tort Law — Fraud — Dishonest Dealings in Land — Depriving Purchaser of Equitable Interest
Fraud in land transactions covers dishonest dealings such as depriving a purchaser for value in occupation of the land of his unregistered interest. A vendor who deliberately sells land to third parties after entering into a binding agreement with a purchaser and receiving part payment acts fraudulently by deliberately depriving the purchaser of their equitable interest in the land.
Contract Law — Elements of Valid Contract — Capacity, Intention, Consideration, Lawful Object
For a contract to be valid and legally enforceable there must be capacity to contract, intention to contract, consensus ad idem, valuable consideration, legality of purpose, and sufficient certainty of terms. If any of these elements is missing in a given transaction, it cannot be called a contract.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (9)

  • Ronald Kasibante v Shell Uganda Ltd (HCCS No. 542 of 2006)
  • Nakana Trading Co Ltd v Coffee Marketing Board (Civil Suit No. 137 of 1991)
  • Greenboat Entertainment Ltd v City Council of Kampala (CS No. 580 of 2003)
  • Meridiana Africa Airlines (U) Ltd v Avmax Spares (EA) Limited (Civil Suit No. 111 of 2017)
  • Fredrick Zaabwe v Orient Bank & Others (SCCA No. 4 of 2006)
  • Fredrick JK Zaabwe v Orient Bank Ltd and Others (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006)
  • Ismail Jaffer Allibhai & 2 Others v Nandlal Harjivan Karia & Another (SC Civil Appeal No. 53 of 1995)
  • John Katarikawe v William Katwiremu & Another [1977] HCB 187
  • John Katarikawe v William Katwiremu & Another [1977] HCB 187

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

Nassimu Moses and Another v Mugambe Sam (Civil Suit No. 68 of 2023) [2025] UGHC 476 (27 June 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.