Wakilii

Okullo Jallon v Attorney general (High Court Civil Suit No. 383 of 2012)

High Court · [2015] UGHCCD 85 · 2015 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 expenses incurred in medical service provision
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff with damages, interest, and costs awarded

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 a legally binding contract existed between the plaintiff and government for medical treatment of Lt Col. Angelo Okello, even though formal procurement procedures were not followed, because government officers acted in emergency circumstances and made part payments acknowledging the debt. Government's failure to pay the plaintiff for over 20 years constituted breach of contract. Plaintiff awarded USD 3,066,400.44 as compound interest at 15% per annum on the principle sum of USD 93,150 plus UGX 500,000,000 general damages.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff with damages, interest, and costs awarded

Facts

In June 1988, the plaintiff, a retired military doctor, was instructed by government officials (the Chief of Medical Services and the Permanent Secretary Ministry of Defence) to provide medical treatment to Lt Col. Angelo Okello, a former rebel leader who had signed a peace agreement with government. The plaintiff treated the patient locally and abroad (Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Belgium, Italy) until the patient died in December 1988. The plaintiff submitted invoices totaling USD 93,150 for professional fees, food, accommodation and transport in February 1989. When payment was delayed, the plaintiff requested and was granted compound interest of 24% per annum by the Permanent Secretary. Government made no payment until 2011 and 2012 when it paid UGX 138,455,750 and UGX 94,200,000 respectively. The plaintiff sued for the balance with accumulated interest.

Issues

  1. Whether the suit is time barred.
  2. Whether there was any binding contract between the plaintiff and the defendant.
  3. Whether there was breach of the contract by the defendant.
  4. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the plaintiff for USD 3,066,400.44 as compound interest at 15% per annum on the principle sum.
  • From the date of judgment until payment in full, the awarded amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum.
  • General damages of UGX 500,000,000 awarded to the plaintiff.
  • The plaintiff shall recover taxed costs of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Formation — Verbal Agreements — Government Contracts — Emergency Circumstances
A legally binding contract can exist between a private party and government even without formal written agreement or compliance with procurement procedures where government officials with ostensible authority commissioned urgent services in emergency circumstances and the government subsequently made part payment acknowledging the debt.
Contract Law — Government Contracts — Ostensible Authority — Agency
Where a government department in its dealings with a subject takes upon itself to assume authority upon a matter, the subject is entitled to rely on it having the authority which it assumes. A subject dealing with such department does not know and cannot be expected to know the limits of its authority, and if the department is bound as an agent of government, the government is equally bound.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Non-Compliance with Regulations — Effect on Contract Validity
Failure to comply with public procurement regulations (Public Finance Act 1962 and Public Finance Tender Board Regulations 1977) does not render the contract void but may subject the responsible public officer to surcharge and disciplinary proceedings. The contract remains valid and the supplier is entitled to payment.
Contract Law — Public Policy — Breach of Procurement Procedures
For a contract to be contrary to public policy and therefore unenforceable, there must be reprehensible or unconscionable conduct that contributed substantially to the contract, and the breach must go beyond mere inconsistency with law to breach the national interest of Uganda and be contrary to justice and morality. Simple breach of procurement procedures is insufficient.
Contract Law — Breach — Part Payment of Liquidated Debt
Payment of a small sum is not satisfaction of a liquidated debt of a greater amount when there is no consideration for giving up the remainder. Where a liquidated amount is due, payment of a small amount cannot be relied on as satisfaction of the obligation unless there is consideration for relinquishment of the balance.
Damages & Quantum — Interest — Compound Interest — Reasonableness Against Government
While compound interest may be awarded for delayed payment under contract, where judgment is against government involving public funds, courts must show rational concern and may reduce an agreed interest rate that is excessively high. An agreed compound interest rate of 24% per annum may be reduced to 15% per annum where appropriate having regard to the public interest.
Civil Procedure — Limitation — Part Payment — Effect on Limitation Period
Part payment of a debt by a debtor stops time which has started to run against the creditor and causes it to start afresh. Where a plaintiff pleads part payment as an exemption under Order 7 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the claim accrues from the date of the debtor's last payment.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (9)

  • J. K Patel v Uganda Revenue Authority (High Court Civil Suit No. 14 of 2003)
  • Robertson v Minister of Pensions [1949] 1 KB 227
  • NSSF and Another v Alcon International (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2009)
  • Hydro Engineering Services Co. (U) Ltd (HESCO) v Thorne International Boiler Services (High Court Civil Suit No. 818 of 2003)
  • Sarah Kayaga Farm Limited v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 351 of 1991)
  • Attorney General v Goodman Agencies Limited (Constitutional Appeal No. 5 of 2010)
  • KCC v Nakaye [1972] EA 446
  • Kyambaadde v Mpigi District Administration [1993] HCB 44
  • Stroms v Hatchinson [1905] AC 515

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Okullo Jallon v Attorney general (High Court Civil Suit No. 383 of 2012) [2015] UGHCCD 85 (9 September 2015)
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.