Wakilii

Okello v Otto (HCT-04-CV-CS-0043 2003)

High Court · [2004] UGHCCD 4 · 2004 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
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff with recovery of purchase price, general damages, travel expenses, costs, and 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 a verbal agreement to supply a specified motor vehicle was not altered merely because the plaintiff expressed willingness to accept an alternative vehicle to cut his losses. The defendant breached the contract by failing to deliver the 5-door Escudo vehicle as agreed. The court awarded the plaintiff a refund of the purchase price, general damages, and travel expenses, rejecting the defendant's claim that the plaintiff was estopped from denying the substitution or should accept a different vehicle not within the contract terms.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff with recovery of purchase price, general damages, travel expenses, costs, and interest

Facts

In 2001, the plaintiff, a medical officer, treated the defendant's child and a relationship developed. The defendant, who introduced himself as having a car import business, agreed to import a 5-door Escudo vehicle for the plaintiff. The plaintiff paid shs. 7 million in instalments by August 2001, with delivery expected within one month. In November, the defendant delivered a 3-door Escudo, which the plaintiff rejected. The plaintiff demanded either the agreed 5-door Escudo or a refund. The defendant offered to import a Toyota Corona, which the plaintiff rejected. In August 2002, frustrated by the delay, the plaintiff considered accepting a different Toyota Corona belonging to one Ebong Patrick, but the defendant failed to pay for that vehicle. The plaintiff filed suit seeking recovery of the money paid, special and general damages, interest, and costs. The defendant admitted the facts but claimed the contract was amended to supply a Toyota Corona, asserting such a vehicle was in customs bond awaiting collection.

Issues

  1. Whether the agreement for the supply of a 5-door Escudo motor vehicle was subsequently altered to supply a cheaper motor vehicle, a Toyota Corona.
  2. Whether the motor vehicle Toyota Corona was imported and offered to the plaintiff by the defendant.
  3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a refund of shs. 7 million or ought to take possession of the imported Toyota Corona.
  4. What reliefs the parties are entitled to.

Orders

  • The plaintiff shall recover from the defendant the sum of shs. 7 million paid for the vehicle which was not delivered.
  • The defendant shall pay shs. 2 million as general damages.
  • The plaintiff shall recover shs. 150,000/- as expenses on travel and accommodation.
  • The defendant shall pay the costs of the suit.
  • The sum awarded in No. 1 shall carry interest at a rate of 22% per annum from date of filing the suit till payment in full.
  • The sums awarded in Nos. 2, 3 and 4 shall carry interest at court rate from date of judgement till payment in full.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Non-Delivery — Obligation to Deliver Specified Goods
Where a party to a contract for the supply of a specified motor vehicle admits receiving payment but fails to deliver the agreed vehicle, that party is in breach of the contract terms and cannot unilaterally substitute an inferior or different make of vehicle.
Contract Law — Variation of Contract — Absence of Agreement — Express or Implied Terms
A contract is not varied merely because the aggrieved party, in the face of protracted non-performance, expresses willingness to accept an alternative arrangement to cut losses. Such conduct does not amount to an admission that the contract terms were altered where the party continues to demand performance of the original terms or a refund.
Contract Law — Estoppel — Conduct Inconsistent with Original Contract
A party is not estopped from enforcing the original contract terms on the ground that they briefly considered accepting substitute performance, where there is no evidence of express agreement to vary the contract and the party consistently demanded either the specified performance or a refund.
Damages & Quantum — Special Damages — Pleading and Proof
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. General assertions of travel expenses without supporting evidence of the amounts claimed are insufficient to discharge the burden of proof for special damages, though the court may award a reasonable sum for expenses where it is obvious they must have been incurred.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Okello v Otto (HCT-04-CV-CS-0043_2003) [2004] UGHCCD 4 (25 August 2004)
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.