Wakilii

Nzonzo & 2 Others v Tusker Mattresses (U) Limited (Civil Suit 566 of 2020)

High Court · [2024] UGCOMMC 206 · 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 contract and recovery of money; heard ex parte after defendant failed to enter appearance
Decision
Judgment entered for the 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs; 1st Plaintiff's claim dismissed for lack of standing; Defendant ordered to pay special 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 its verbal contract to pay for fresh produce supplied by the second and third plaintiffs. The defendant failed to prove its defence of full payment. The court awarded special damages of UGX 76,867,184 in total (UGX 44,256,114 to the second plaintiff and UGX 32,611,070 to the third plaintiff) based on invoices endorsed by the defendant confirming delivery. General damages of UGX 27,000,000 were also awarded for financial loss, distress and inconvenience. The first plaintiff was denied standing as no deliveries were made in his own name and right.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs; 1st Plaintiff's claim dismissed for lack of standing; Defendant ordered to pay special and general damages with interest

Facts

In 2011, the first and third plaintiffs entered into a verbal contract to supply fresh produce to the defendant's supermarkets in Uganda. The second plaintiff later joined. Supplies continued until early 2020. The arrangement was that the defendant's agents would endorse delivery notes confirming receipt, after which the plaintiffs would issue invoices for payment. In 2019, the defendant began experiencing cash flow problems. By early 2020, the defendant closed all its branches in Uganda and ceased operations without paying outstanding amounts. The plaintiffs claimed UGX 120,000,000 was owed. The defendant filed a defence asserting full payment and requesting account reconciliation, but closed its operations and failed to appear at trial. The hearing proceeded ex parte. Evidence showed only the second and third plaintiffs made deliveries in their own names.

Issues

  1. Whether the Defendant breached the contract of supply of fresh produce.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Judgment entered in favour of the 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs against the Defendant.
  • The Defendant shall pay UGX 44,256,114 in special damages to the 2nd Plaintiff.
  • The Defendant shall pay UGX 32,611,070 in special damages to the 3rd Plaintiff.
  • The Defendant shall pay UGX 15,000,000 in general damages to the 2nd Plaintiff.
  • The Defendant shall pay UGX 12,000,000 in general damages to the 3rd Plaintiff.
  • The Defendant shall pay interest on the special damages at the rate of 18% per annum from 13 August 2020 until full payment.
  • The Defendant shall pay interest on the general damages at the rate of 14% per annum from the date of judgment until full payment.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Failure to Pay for Goods Supplied
Breach of contract occurs when one party fails, neglects, or refuses to perform its obligations under the contract without legal excuse, including failure to pay for goods delivered and accepted under a supply contract.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Standard of Proof in Civil Cases
In civil cases, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving the existence of rights and the defendant's liability on a balance of probabilities, meaning the tribunal must be satisfied that the claim is more probable than not.
Evidence — Factual Burden of Proof — Defendant's Duty to Prove Defence
While the legal burden of proof never shifts from the plaintiff in a civil suit, the factual burden alternates between parties, and a defendant who asserts a defence bears the factual burden of proving it so that the court can accept it.
Civil Procedure — Ex Parte Hearings — Effect of Defendant's Failure to Appear
A defendant's failure to appear at trial after filing a defence and receiving proper notice, particularly where the defendant has closed business and cannot be traced, fatally undermines the defence and permits the court to proceed ex parte.
Contract Law — Standing to Sue — Party to Contract
Only a party who personally entered into a contract and performed obligations in their own name and right has standing to claim for recovery of arrears under that contract; a person acting solely as a representative of a corporate entity has no personal cause of action.
Damages & Quantum — Special Damages — Proof Requirements
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and proved, but strict proof need not always be documentary; invoices endorsed by the defendant confirming delivery of goods constitute compelling evidence of the debt owed.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Breach of Commercial Supply Contract
General damages flow naturally from breach and include financial loss, distress, inconvenience and disillusionment caused when a debtor closes business and leaves the jurisdiction without paying outstanding monies or according the creditor any courtesy to arrange payment, particularly after a long cordial business relationship.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (7)

  • Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372
  • William Kasozi v DFCU Bank Ltd (HCCS No. 1326 of 2000)
  • Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd v Hajji Yahaya Sekalega (HCCS No. 185 of 2009)
  • Opia Moses v Chukia Lumago Roselyn & 5 Ors (HCCS No. 22 of 2013)
  • Kabagambe Matthias v Kahire Nobert (HCCS No. 389 of 2016)
  • Mohanlal Kakubhai Radia v Warid Telecom Uganda Ltd (HCCS No. 224 of 2011)
  • Kwizera Eddie v Attorney General (Supreme Court Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2008)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nzonzo & 2 Others v Tusker Mattresses (U) Limited (Civil Suit 566 of 2020) [2024] UGCommC 206 (31 July 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.