Wakilii

Okao v Opio (Civil Appeal 6 of 2007)

High Court · [2023] UGHC 426 · 2023 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from Apac Magistrate's Court Civil Suit No. 009 of 2014
Decision
Appeal dismissed. Respondent awarded refund of purchase price paid.

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 3 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 3 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations rising — 3 citing cases on record, 3 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 appellant breached the contract of sale by delivering a defective tipper lorry that could neither tip nor stop effectively despite assurances that defects would be repaired. The respondent was entitled to reject the vehicle upon delivery when he discovered ongoing faults. Where a buyer discovers defects upon delivery and returns the vehicle without using it, the buyer is entitled to recover the purchase price paid as money had and received. Appeal dismissed.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed. Respondent awarded refund of purchase price paid.

Facts

On 14 March 2014, the respondent agreed to purchase a tipper lorry (Reg. No. UAK 354A) from the appellant for Shs. 13,000,000, paying Shs. 9,000,000 as deposit. At the time of viewing, the respondent discovered the tipping system and stopping system were not working. The appellant took the vehicle back, promising to repair these defects. On 15 March 2014, the appellant delivered the vehicle claiming repairs were complete. Upon starting the engine, the respondent and a mechanic heard abnormal sounds and confirmed the tipping and stopping systems still did not work. On 16 March 2014, the respondent towed the vehicle back to the appellant's home in the presence of the LCI. The appellant refused to accept the returned vehicle. The trial magistrate found the appellant in breach of contract and awarded the respondent Shs. 9,000,000 plus costs. The appellant appealed.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial magistrate erred in finding that the appellant breached the contract of sale of the motor vehicle.
  2. Whether the trial magistrate erred in awarding the respondent special damages of Shs. 9,000,000.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • The appellant breached the contract of sale of motor vehicle Reg. No. UAK 354A.
  • The respondent is entitled to recover special damages of Shs. 9,000,000 from the appellant as money had and received.
  • Plaintiff entitled to costs of the suit.
  • Decision of the lower court upheld.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Sale of Goods — Examination of Goods — Right to Reject
Under section 42(1) of the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 2018, where goods are delivered to a buyer who has not previously examined them, the buyer is not taken to have accepted them until a reasonable opportunity for examination to ascertain conformity with the contract has been provided.
Contract Law — Sale of Goods — Rejection of Goods — Buyer's Obligations
Under section 44 of the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 2018, where goods are delivered and the buyer refuses to accept them having the right to do so, the buyer is not bound to return them to the seller and it is sufficient if the buyer intimates refusal to the seller.
Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Seller's Failure to Deliver Conforming Goods
Where a seller undertakes to repair defects in goods before delivery and delivers the goods claiming repairs are complete, but the defects remain, the seller breaches the contract of sale and the buyer is entitled to reject the goods and recover monies paid.
Contract Law — Special Damages — Pleading and Proof
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. Documentary evidence is not always required; cogent verbal evidence may suffice to establish entitlement to special damages.
Civil Procedure — First Appellate Court — Duty to Re-evaluate Evidence
A first appellate court is under an obligation to re-hear the case by subjecting the evidence presented to the trial court to fresh and exhaustive scrutiny and re-appraisal before coming to its own conclusion.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (3)

  • [2004] KALR 236
  • Gapco (U) Ltd v AS Transporters Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2007)
  • Kampala City Council v Nakaye (1972) EA 446

Cases citing this judgment (3)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Okao v Opio (Civil Appeal 6 of 2007) [2023] UGHC 426 (22 November 2023)
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.