Wakilii

Ntozi v Out Media International Limited & Another (Civil Suit 1076 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGCOMMC 330 · 2024 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for breach of equipment hire agreement heard on formal proof after defendant failed to file defence
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff with orders for payment of contractual sums, damages, interest, and costs against the 1st defendant

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 court held that the first defendant breached an equipment hire agreement by failing to pay contractual sums totalling UGX 269,000,000 as evidenced by interim payment certificates issued by the defendant. The court awarded the plaintiff the full contractual sum plus nominal general damages of UGX 5,000,000, special damages of UGX 16,000,000 for transportation costs, and interest at 18% per annum. The court applied the principle that interim payment certificates constitute an acknowledgement of debt and create an immediate cause of action.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff with orders for payment of contractual sums, damages, interest, and costs against the 1st defendant

Facts

On 12 September 2022, the plaintiff entered into an equipment hire agreement with the first defendant to hire two excavators for breaking hardcore rocks and loading stone aggregates at a site in Kween District. The agreed daily hire charges were UGX 2,900,000 for one excavator with a hammer and UGX 1,100,000 for another excavator with a bucket. Payment was to be effected within three days after submission of invoice. The plaintiff transported the equipment to the site and commenced work. After 30 working days, the plaintiff submitted an invoice but the defendant did not pay, claiming to be awaiting payment from sub-contractors. The plaintiff continued work until 2023 when he terminated the contract and transported the equipment back to Kampala. The unpaid contractual sums accumulated to UGX 260,000,000. The first defendant issued three interim payment certificates totalling UGX 269,000,000 acknowledging the debt but failed to pay. The defendant did not file a defence and the matter proceeded to formal proof.

Issues

  1. Whether the Defendant breached the contract
  2. What remedies are available to the parties

Orders

  • The 1st Defendant pays the Plaintiff UGX 269,000,000 being the outstanding contractual sums
  • The 1st Defendant pays nominal damages of UGX 5,000,000
  • The Plaintiff is awarded interest at a rate of 18% per annum on the sums awarded from the date of judgment till payment in full
  • The 1st Defendant pays the costs of the Plaintiff

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Effect of Interlocutory Judgment
Where an interlocutory judgment has been entered in favour of the plaintiff and the matter comes for formal proof, breach of the agreement is no longer an issue to be determined.
Commercial Law — Interim Payment Certificates — Legal Effect
An interim payment certificate issued in terms of a contract constitutes an acknowledgement of debt in favour of the contractor and creates a distinct cause of action enabling the contractor to sue immediately without going beyond the certificate.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Requirement of Proof
General damages are awarded at the discretion of the court to compensate the aggrieved party fairly for inconveniences suffered, but it is the duty of the claimant to plead and prove that damages, losses or injuries were suffered as a result of the defendant's actions.
Damages & Quantum — Nominal Damages — When Awarded
Where a plaintiff establishes a breach of contract but fails to establish a loss caused by the wrong, only nominal damages are awarded to recognise that the plaintiff has suffered a legal infringement of his right.
Damages & Quantum — Special Damages — Proof
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved, though they need not be supported by documentary evidence in all cases where the contractual obligation to pay for the item claimed is established.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (7)

  • Hajji Asumani Mutekanga v Equator Growers (U) Ltd (Civil Suit No. 7 of 1995)
  • Thomas Construction (Pty) Ltd (in Liquidation) v Grafton Furniture Manufacturers (Pty) Ltd [1988] 2 All SA 228
  • Dawnays Ltd v F G Minter Ltd and Trollope and Colls Ltd [1971] 1 WLR 1205
  • Thunderbolt Technical Services Ltd v Apedu Joseph and Another (High Court Civil Suit No. 340 of 2009)
  • Luzinda Marion Babirye v Ssekamatte and Others (Civil Suit No. 366 of 2017)
  • Zebra Associates Ltd v Linksoft Communication System (Civil Suit No. 569 of 2012)
  • Kyambadde v Mpigi District Administration [1983] HCB 44

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ntozi v Out Media International Limited & Another (Civil Suit 1076 of 2023) [2024] UGCommC 330 (29 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.