Wakilii

Odongo v FUFA Super League Ltd & Anor (CIVIL SUIT NO. 244 OF 2015) 2019 UGHCCD 41 (2019-02-20)

High Court · [2019] UGHCCD 41 Judgment for Defendants AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for commission arising from alleged oral contract
Decision
Plaintiff's suit dismissed entirely 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 commission under a contract to which he was not privy. The doctrine of privity of contract prevents a stranger to a contract from deriving rights or obligations from it. The plaintiff's alternative claim of an oral agreement with the 2nd defendant also failed as he did not discharge the burden of proving the existence and essential terms of such agreement on the balance of probabilities.

Outcome

Plaintiff's suit dismissed entirely with costs to both defendants

Facts

The plaintiff claimed he brokered a sponsorship deal between Azam TV and FUFA Super League Ltd (1st defendant) worth USD 1,900,000 over 3½ years, and was entitled to 10% commission (USD 190,000). The 1st defendant had executed a commission agreement with the 2nd defendant on 1 November 2014 for 15% commission. The plaintiff alleged he contacted Azam TV by email on 19 November 2014, but the 2nd defendant testified he had already met Azam officials in Tanzania on 12 September 2014. The plaintiff claimed an oral agreement with the 2nd defendant to share commission, but produced no written evidence of any agreement with either defendant. The 1st defendant denied any contractual relationship with the plaintiff.

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 — Rights of Third Parties
A contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations on strangers to it. A person who is not a party to a contract has no cause of action to claim benefits under that contract.
Contract Law — Oral Contracts — Burden of Proof
An oral contract is not legally enforceable unless it is provable in court. The party asserting the existence of an oral agreement bears the burden of proving both the existence of the agreement and its essential terms on the balance of probabilities.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Oral Agreements
Where a party alleges the existence of an oral contract, oral evidence alone is insufficient and must be supported through other means such as contemporaneous records, witness testimony, or documentary evidence of the agreement.
Contract Law — Essential Elements — Offer, Acceptance, Consideration
An oral agreement must satisfy the requirements of a valid agreement including offer, acceptance, consideration, and capacity to contract. A court is unlikely to uphold an oral agreement if these essential elements are not sufficiently certain and proved.
Evidence — Pleadings — Departure from Pleadings
Evidence that constitutes a departure from a party's pleadings should be disregarded. A party cannot rely on a cause of action or factual basis not pleaded in the statement of claim.

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 v FUFA Super League Ltd & Anor (CIVIL SUIT NO. 244 OF 2015) 2019 UGHCCD 41 (2019-02-20)
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.