Wakilii

Olal v Steel & Tube Industries Ltd (HCCS 7 of 2016)

High Court · [2019] UGCOMMC 2 · 2019 Judgment for Plaintiff (Partial) AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for breach of contract and refund of purchase price
Decision
Judgment entered for the Plaintiff in part — Defendant to deliver balance of 200 plates or pay current value with 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

Held that a contract existed for supply of 1,000 cold roll plates at UGX 56,000,000, which the Defendant breached by failing to deliver all agreed items. The court found on the basis of an admission in the plaintiff's own pre-action notice that the plaintiff had received 800 of the 1,000 plates. An advocate's written notice to the defendant binds the client where the advocate acted on instructions. The defendant was ordered to deliver the remaining 200 plates or pay their current cost, plus interest at 20% per annum on UGX 11,200,000 from the date of the pre-action notice. General damages were denied because the plaintiff demanded what he had already received.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the Plaintiff in part — Defendant to deliver balance of 200 plates or pay current value with interest

Facts

The Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to purchase 1,000 cold roll plates of 0.8mm thickness for UGX 56,000,000, which he paid in full and received a cash sale receipt. The Plaintiff claimed the Defendant failed to deliver any plates. The Defendant's defence was that 800 of the 1,000 plates had been delivered and that only a balance of 200 plates (or UGX 11,200,000) remained outstanding. The Plaintiff's advocate wrote a pre-action letter dated 18 November 2015 stating that the Plaintiff had received 800 plates worth UGX 44,800,000 and demanding refund of UGX 11,200,000 for the undelivered 200 plates. At trial, the Plaintiff denied receiving any plates and claimed his advocate had written the letter incorrectly. The court found the advocate's letter credible and held that 800 plates had been delivered.

Issues

  1. Whether there was a contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant for supply of 1,000 Cold Roll Plates at UGX 56,000,000.
  2. Whether the Defendant breached the contract.
  3. Whether the Plaintiff received 800 of the 1,000 pieces of plates.
  4. What remedies are available.

Orders

  • The Defendant shall deliver 200 pieces of cold roll plates of 0.8mm or pay the Plaintiff the current price of those plates.
  • The sum of UGX 11,200,000 shall attract interest at 20% per annum from 18th November 2015 until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Partial Non-Delivery
Where a seller fails to deliver the full quantity of goods agreed upon in a contract of sale, the seller is in breach of contract, and the buyer is entitled to delivery of the outstanding goods or payment of their current value.
Evidence — Admissions — Advocate's Pre-Action Notice — Binding on Client
An advocate acts on the instructions of their client, and where an advocate makes admissions in a pre-action notice or other correspondence, those admissions bind the client unless withdrawn or corrected before litigation or unless the client adduces evidence that the advocate acted without instructions.
Evidence — Weight of Evidence — Failure to Call Material Witness
Where a party relies on a written statement but challenges its accuracy at trial, the failure to call the author of that statement as a witness to explain the discrepancy weakens the challenge, and the written statement remains undisturbed as evidence of what transpired.
Contract Law — Damages — General Damages — Denial on Conduct of Plaintiff
General damages will be denied where the damage or loss was caused by the plaintiff's own conduct, including where the plaintiff demanded in court what he had already received.
Contract Law — Interest — Deprivation of Use of Money
Where a party has been deprived of the use of money owed under a contract, interest is awardable at a rate reflecting the commercial cost of borrowing, typically bank rate, and runs from the date the creditor made formal demand.

Cases cited (4)

  • Nsubuga v Attorney General (HCCS No. 13 of 1993)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
  • Musisi v Bebihuga [2007] HCB 1
  • Kibimba Rice Ltd v Salim (SC Appeal No. 17 of 1992)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Olal v Steel & Tube Industries Ltd (HCCS 7 of 2016) [2019] UGCommC 2 (22 January 2019)
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.