Wakilii

Ojwiya v Mutisa (Civil Suit No. 2122 of 2016)

High Court · [2021] UGHCLD 19 · 2021 Judgment for Plaintiff (Alternative Claim) AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for specific performance of land sale agreement and alternative claim for money had and received
Decision
Plaintiff's claim for specific performance dismissed; alternative claim for money had and received granted with interest and partial costs

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 plaintiff breached the land sale agreement by failing to pay instalments on time, and therefore was not entitled to specific performance. However, applying the principle of unjust enrichment and money had and received, the court ordered the defendant to refund UGX 72,500,000 received from the plaintiff, with interest at 18% per annum from the date of filing suit, as the defendant had provided no consideration in return and retention of the money would be unjust.

Outcome

Plaintiff's claim for specific performance dismissed; alternative claim for money had and received granted with interest and partial costs

Facts

The defendant and her husband owned land mortgaged to Housing Finance Bank. Facing foreclosure, they agreed to sell the land to the plaintiff for UGX 120,000,000 in three instalments. The plaintiff paid UGX 38,500,000 on execution. The second instalment of UGX 41,500,000 was due by 30 September 2013. The plaintiff paid late and only partially: UGX 14,000,000 on 7 October 2013 and UGX 20,000,000 on 26 October 2013, totalling UGX 34,000,000. The parties executed an addendum varying the payment deadline to end of October 2013. The plaintiff made no further payments. The third instalment of UGX 40,000,000 was due by 6 January 2014 but was never paid. The defendant re-mortgaged the land to Finance Trust Bank. On 14 March 2014, the defendant rescinded the contract alleging breach and offered to refund the money received less expenses. The plaintiff sued for specific performance or, alternatively, for refund of UGX 72,500,000 as money had and received.

Issues

  1. Whether the Defendant breached the sale agreement with the Plaintiff.
  2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to any remedies.

Orders

  • The Plaintiff is entitled to a refund of UGX 72,500,000 from the Defendant as money had and received.
  • Interest awarded at 18% per annum from the date of filing the suit until payment in full.
  • The Defendant shall pay 50% of the costs of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Time of Payment — Waiver and Variation
Where a party to a contract accepts late payment of an instalment and executes an addendum varying the payment deadline, that party waives the right to claim breach based on the original deadline and is estopped from asserting that the other party was in breach at the time of the original deadline.
Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Failure to Pay Instalments
Failure by a buyer to pay agreed instalments by the varied deadline constitutes a breach of the obligation stipulated in the contract, disentitling the buyer to specific performance or other remedies arising from breach by the seller.
Contract Law — Money Had and Received — Unjust Enrichment
Where one person has received money from another and provided no consideration in return, the law implies an obligation to refund that money. The principle of unjust enrichment requires that the defendant has been enriched by receipt of a benefit, that this enrichment is at the expense of the plaintiff, and that retention of the enrichment is unjust.
Contract Law — Interest on Refund — Commercial Transactions
A plaintiff who has been wrongfully deprived of money is entitled to interest on the refund. The court has discretion under section 26(2) of the Civil Procedure Act to award interest where no rate is agreed, taking into account the commercial nature of the transaction and the period for which the defendant has held the plaintiff's money.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (10)

  • Stockloser v Johnson [1954] 1 All ER 640
  • Pioneer Shipping Ltd v BTP Tioxide Ltd [1982] AC 724
  • Pan African Insurance Company (U) Ltd v International Air Transport Association (HCCS No. 667 of 2003)
  • Kasibante v Shell (U) Ltd (HCCS No. 542 of 2006)
  • Shenoi & Another v Maximou [2005] EA 280
  • Mahabir Kishore & Madhya Pradesh 1990 AIR 313
  • Tumwine & Another v Magara & Another (HCCS No. 576 of 2004)
  • Sietco v Noble Builders (U) Ltd (SCCA No. 31 of 1995)
  • Crescent Transportation Co. Ltd v Bin Technical Services Ltd (CACA No. 25 of 2000)
  • Mbabazi & Another v Matco Stores Ltd & Another (CA Civil Reference No. 15 of 2004)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ojwiya_v_Mutisa_(Civil_Suit_No._2122_of_2016)_[2021]_UGHCLD_19_(1_February_2021)
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.