Wakilii

Odongo Alfred v Fufa Super League Limited and Another [2019] UGHCCD 316

High Court · 2019 Judgment for Defendant AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for commission arising from alleged agency relationship
Decision
Suit dismissed in its entirety with costs to both defendants

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

Held that the plaintiff had no contractual relationship with the 1st defendant and could not claim benefits from a commission agreement to which he was not privy, applying the doctrine of privity of contract. The plaintiff's alternative claim based on an alleged oral agreement with the 2nd defendant failed as he did not discharge the burden of proving the existence and essential terms of the oral contract to the required standard.

Outcome

Suit dismissed in its entirety with costs to both defendants

Facts

The plaintiff claimed he negotiated a sponsorship deal between Azam TV and Fufa Super League Ltd worth USD 1,900,000 and was entitled to 10% commission (USD 190,000). The 1st defendant had executed a commission agreement dated 1 November 2014 with the 2nd defendant for 15% commission. The plaintiff claimed an oral agreement with the 2nd defendant for 10% commission. The plaintiff sent his first email to Azam on 19 November 2014, but the 2nd defendant had already met with Azam officials in Tanzania on 12 September 2014. The plaintiff never attended negotiation meetings in Kampala or Dar es Salaam. The plaintiff's counsel failed to appear at the scheduled hearing on 13 September 2018, and the matter proceeded with defendant witnesses testifying. The court later allowed the plaintiff to cross-examine defence witnesses.

Issues

  1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to any commission from the 1st defendant and if so in what sum?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Suit against the 1st defendant dismissed with costs.
  • Plaintiff's case against the 2nd defendant dismissed with costs to the defendants.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Privity of Contract — Third Party Rights
A person who is not a party to a contract cannot claim rights or benefits arising from that contract, as the doctrine of privity of contract provides that a contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations on strangers to it.
Contract Law — Oral Contracts — Burden of Proof
A party alleging the existence of an oral contract bears the burden of proving both the existence of the agreement and its essential terms to the satisfaction of the court; oral evidence alone will not be sufficient and must be supported through other means.
Contract Law — Oral Contracts — Essential Elements
An oral agreement must satisfy the requirements of a valid contract including offer, acceptance, consideration, and capacity to contract; where these essential elements cannot be established with sufficient certainty, the court will not uphold the agreement.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Civil Cases
Where a plaintiff seeks to enforce an oral agreement, the plaintiff must prove the terms of the agreement and its existence on the balance of probabilities, either by recording of the agreement or by witness testimony; failure to adduce sufficient corroborative evidence beyond oral assertions will result in dismissal of the claim.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Departure from Pleadings
Evidence that constitutes a departure from the plaintiff's pleadings and attempts to introduce a new basis for the claim during trial should be disregarded by the court.

Cases cited (2)

  • Katalemwa Traders Ltd v Attorney General (SCCA No. 2 of 1987)
  • JK Patel v Spear Motors Ltd (SCCA No. 4 of 1991)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Odongo Alfred v Fufa Super League Limited and Another 2019 UGHCCD 316 (20 February 2019)
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.