Wakilii

Norwegian Refugee Council v Bomak Traders Limited (Civil Suit 12 of 2019)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 977 · 2024 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of money paid by mistake; interlocutory default judgment entered against defendant for failure to file defence
Decision
Plaintiff's claim for refund of money paid by mistake allowed with interest and costs

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 5 (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 5 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations rising — 5 citing cases on record, 5 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

Held that where a party mistakenly makes a double payment under a contract and the recipient acknowledges receipt of the excess and undertakes to refund it but fails to do so, the doctrine of unjust enrichment applies. The defendant was enriched at the plaintiff's expense by retaining UGX 89,503,075 paid in error. Following the defendant's acknowledgment and part payment, the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of the outstanding balance with interest and costs.

Outcome

Plaintiff's claim for refund of money paid by mistake allowed with interest and costs

Facts

The plaintiff entered into a construction contract with the defendant for UGX 472,000,000. The defendant made three payment requests totaling the contract price. The plaintiff duly paid all three invoices but on 18 October 2018 mistakenly made an additional payment of UGX 164,503,075 to the defendant. The defendant acknowledged receipt of the excess payment in writing on 24 December 2018, made a partial refund, and undertook to pay the outstanding balance of UGX 89,503,075 as soon as practicable. The defendant failed to pay the outstanding balance. The defendant was granted unconditional leave to defend but failed to file a defence within the stipulated time. The court entered interlocutory default judgment on 12 April 2023 and set the matter down for hearing on quantum.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a refund of UGX 89,503,075 from the defendant.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's suit allowed.
  • Defendant to refund UGX 89,503,075 to the plaintiff.
  • Interest awarded at 20% per annum from 4 October 2024 until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Mistake — Recovery of Money Paid by Mistake — Unjust Enrichment
Where a party pays money to another by mistake of fact through bona fide forgetfulness or error, and the recipient has no entitlement to receive it, the payer may recover the money in an action for money had and received under the doctrine of unjust enrichment.
Contract Law — Unjust Enrichment — Elements — Restitution
For an obligation to refund money under the doctrine of unjust enrichment to arise, three elements must be established: first, that the defendant has been enriched by the receipt of a benefit; secondly, that this enrichment is at the expense of the plaintiff; and thirdly, that the retention of the enrichment is unjust.
Contract Law — Consideration — Want of Consideration — Recovery
Where a party receives consideration under a contract and does not give anything in return for the excess amount received, that party is entitled to refund the money under Section 61(1) of the Contract Act 2010.
Civil Procedure — Default Judgment — Interlocutory Default Judgment — Hearing on Quantum
Where a defendant is granted unconditional leave to defend but fails to file a defence within the time allowed by court, the court may enter an interlocutory default judgment under Order 9 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules and set the suit down for hearing on quantum under Order 9 Rule 12(2).
Contract Law — Acknowledgment of Debt — Admission — Entitlement to Judgment
Where a defendant makes a categorical, unambiguous, clear, unconditional and unequivocal admission of liability in writing and makes part payment of the sum claimed, the plaintiff is entitled to judgment limited to recovery of the admitted sum.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (3)

  • Joseph Muluuta v Katama Silvano (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1999)
  • Moses v Macfarlane (1760) 2 Burr 1005
  • Kelly v Solari (1841) 9 M & W 54

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.

Norwegian Refugee Council v Bomak Traders Limited (Civil Suit 12 of 2019) [2024] UGHC 977 (4 October 2024)
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.