Wakilii

Olympic Petroleum Uganda Ltd v Uniworks Transporters and Logistics (U) Ltd (Civil Suit 797 of 2021)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 444 · 2025 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of debt arising from breach of contract
Decision
Judgment entered for the Plaintiff with order for payment of UGX 72,451,000 plus interest at 18% per annum from 1st August 2020 until full payment

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 found the Defendant liable for breach of contract for failing to pay UGX 72,451,000 for fuel supplied on credit. Despite a clerical error in the contract naming the supplier as Olympic Petroleum Ltd instead of Olympic Petroleum Uganda Ltd, the court held that the LPOs, tax invoices, and partial payments confirmed the Defendant knew it contracted with the Plaintiff. The court declined to enforce the contractual interest rate of 120% per annum as harsh and unconscionable, awarding instead 17% per annum from August 2020 until full payment.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the Plaintiff with order for payment of UGX 72,451,000 plus interest at 18% per annum from 1st August 2020 until full payment

Facts

In January 2020, the Plaintiff and Defendant executed a contract for the supply of fuel on credit to enable the Defendant to perform its contract obligations to third parties. Between 14th April 2020 and 25th May 2020, the Defendant ordered fuel worth UGX 72,451,000 through 18 Local Purchase Orders. The Plaintiff supplied the fuel and the Defendant acknowledged receipt on 18 tax invoices. Under the contract, payment was due within 21 days following the end of the month of supply, with unpaid sums attracting 10% monthly interest after 15 days. Despite reminders, the Defendant failed to pay. The Defendant claimed it had paid in full but adduced no independent evidence of payment. The Defendant also claimed the Plaintiff abruptly stopped supplies, but did not plead a counterclaim. A clerical error in the contract stated the supplier as Olympic Petroleum Ltd instead of Olympic Petroleum Uganda Ltd, but all LPOs and invoices used the correct name.

Issues

  1. Whether the Defendant is liable for breach of contract.
  2. What reliefs are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The Defendant pay the sum of UGX 72,451,000 being the unpaid value of fuel supplies under the contract to the Plaintiff.
  • The Defendant shall pay interest on the sum at the rate of 18% p.a. from 1st August 2020 until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit are awarded to the Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Failure to Pay for Goods Supplied
Breach of contract occurs when a party fails, neglects or refuses to perform obligations in the contract without legal excuse. Where a party fails to pay for goods supplied under a contract and adduces no independent evidence of payment, that party is liable for breach of contract.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Defendant's Burden to Prove Payment
Under Section 103 of the Evidence Act Cap 8, every person who wishes the court to believe in the existence of a fact has the burden to prove that fact. A defendant claiming to have fully paid for supplies received must adduce independent evidence confirming the payments to discharge the burden of proof on a balance of probabilities.
Contract Law — Contractual Identity — Clerical Error in Party Name
A clerical error in the formal contract as to a party's name does not vitiate the contract where the error is satisfactorily explained and the conduct of the parties, including the issuance of purchase orders and invoices in the correct name, demonstrates that both parties knew the true identity of the contracting party. Such minor inconsistency does not defeat a cause of action.
Contract Law — Interest Clauses — Harsh and Unconscionable Interest Rates
Under Section 26(1) of the Civil Procedure Act Cap 282, where a contractually-agreed interest rate is harsh and unconscionable, the court may decline to enforce it and instead award interest at such rate as it thinks just. An interest rate of 10% per month, amounting to 120% per annum, is harsh and unconscionable and should be struck down if it is not a genuine pre-estimate of damage flowing from the breach.
Civil Procedure — Interest on Damages — Factors for Awarding Interest
Under Section 26(2) of the Civil Procedure Act Cap 282, a successful plaintiff is entitled to interest at a rate that reflects the prevailing economic value of money and insulates the plaintiff against inflation and currency depreciation where money ordered to be recovered is not paid promptly.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (6)

  • Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372
  • William Kasozi v DFCU Bank Ltd (HCCS No. 1326 of 2000)
  • Alfred Tajar v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 167 of 1969)
  • R.L. Jain v Loy Komugisha & 2 Ors (HCCS No. 98 of 2013)
  • Mohanlal Kakubhai v Warid Telecom (U) Ltd (HCCS No. 0224 of 2011)
  • Kwizera Eddie v Attorney General (SC Const. Appeal No. 01 of 2008)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Olympic Petroleum Uganda Ltd v Uniworks Transporters and Logistics (U) Ltd (Civil Suit 797 of 2021) [2025] UGCommC 444 (28 October 2025)
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.