Wakilii

Nitro Chemicals (U) Limited v Makula Construction Limited (Civil Suit 71 of 2020)

High Court · [2023] UGCOMMC 179 · 2023 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of debt following interlocutory judgment under Order 9 rule 8 for failure to file defence
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff for principal sum, general damages, 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

The High Court Commercial Division entered judgment for the plaintiff in a debt recovery action where the defendant failed to file a defence. The court held the defendant liable for USD 17,726 being the outstanding balance for supplied explosive materials, awarded general damages of UGX 15,000,000, and granted interest at 18% per annum on the principal sum and 6% per annum on general damages, together with costs of the suit.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff for principal sum, general damages, interest and costs

Facts

The plaintiff routinely supplied explosive materials to the defendant between May 2016 and August 2019. The total value of supplies was USD 58,924. The defendant made partial payments of USD 41,198, leaving an outstanding balance of USD 17,726. Despite repeated demands, the defendant failed to pay. The defendant issued three Housing Finance Bank cheques totaling UGX 57,075,000 but these were dishonoured. The plaintiff instituted this suit for recovery. The defendant was duly served with summons on 19 February 2020 but failed to file a defence. An interlocutory judgment was entered on 5 November 2020 under Order 9 rule 8. The matter proceeded to formal proof hearing on 19 April 2023.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff.
  2. What are the available remedies?

Orders

  • The defendant shall pay the plaintiff USD 17,726 being the outstanding balance for supply of explosive materials.
  • Interest awarded on the principal sum at 18% per annum from the date of filing suit until payment in full.
  • The plaintiff is awarded general damages of UGX 15,000,000.
  • Interest awarded on general damages at 6% per annum from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • The plaintiff is awarded costs of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Default Judgment — Effect of Failure to File Defence — Deemed Admission
A party who does not enter appearance and file a written statement of defence is deemed to have admitted the allegations in the plaint.
Civil Procedure — Interlocutory Judgment — Assessment of Damages — Scope of Inquiry
Where an interlocutory judgment has been entered in favour of the plaintiff, the question of liability of the defendant is no longer in issue; what remains in issue is the assessment of the quantum of damages.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Undefended Suits — Plaintiff's Duty
A plaintiff has a duty to prove his case on a balance of probabilities even where a matter is undefended.
Contract Law — General Damages — Basis for Award — Inconvenience
To be eligible for an award of general damages, a party must have suffered loss or inconvenience to justify the award of damages.
Contract Law — Interest — Court's Discretion — Section 26(2) Civil Procedure Act
Under Section 26(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, courts have discretionary powers where there is a decree for the payment of money to order interest at such rate as the court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum, the basis being that the plaintiff has been kept out of his money.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (5)

  • Smith v Auto Electric Services Ltd (1951) 24 KLR 22
  • Haji Asuman Mutekanga v Equator Growers (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 07 of 1995)
  • A. Nsubuga v P. N. Kavuma (1978) HCB 307
  • Musisi Edward v Babihuga Hilda [2007] HCB 84
  • Ecobank Uganda Ltd v LB Construction & Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 574 of 2012)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nitro Chemicals (U) Limited v Makula Construction Limited (Civil Suit 71 of 2020) [2023] UGCommC 179 (28 April 2023)
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.