Wakilii

Omap Uganda Limited v Imathia Construction S.L (Civil Suit No. 1327 of 2024)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 223 · 2026 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 heard ex parte after defendant failed to appear
Decision
Judgment entered for plaintiff on all heads of claim; defendant's counterclaim dismissed

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 the defendant breached two contracts: first, by failing to pay USD 26,468 for hired machinery under a 2023 agreement; second, by unlawfully terminating a 2024 construction contract without seven days' written notice as required, and by failing to pay for services rendered. The plaintiff was entitled to quantum meruit for work done prior to termination and to recovery of the outstanding invoices.

Outcome

Judgment entered for plaintiff on all heads of claim; defendant's counterclaim dismissed

Facts

The plaintiff contracted with the defendant in April 2023 to hire excavators, graders and other machinery, and again in July 2024 to construct level crossings at Nyerere and Mukono access roads for USD 22,934 within 14 days. The defendant failed to pay invoices totalling USD 26,468 under the 2023 agreement. Under the 2024 contract, the defendant delayed providing construction materials, then on 26th August 2024 ordered the plaintiff to halt works and formally terminated the contract on 27th August 2024 without the seven days' written notice required by the contract. The plaintiff completed the Nyerere site and had commenced work at Mukono when stopped. The defendant never paid for any work done. The defendant counterclaimed USD 28,475.92 in cost overruns but failed to enter appearance at trial or lead evidence.

Issues

  1. Whether there was breach of contract by either party?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • It is declared that the defendant unlawfully terminated the contract dated 30th July 2024.
  • Defendant to pay USD 26,468 to the plaintiff being the outstanding sum from the agreement dated 25th April 2023.
  • Plaintiff awarded UGX 42,365,000 for works done until the contract dated 30th July 2024 was terminated.
  • Plaintiff awarded special damages of UGX 38,965,000 for materials and UGX 3,740,000 for labour.
  • Plaintiff awarded general damages of UGX 18,000,000.
  • Interest awarded at 20% per annum on USD 26,468 from date of filing suit until payment in full.
  • Interest awarded at 6% per annum on special and general damages from date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Counterclaim dismissed.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Failure to Pay Under Valid Contract
Where a party fails to pay issued invoices for services rendered under a valid contract, and no evidence is adduced to show payment was made, the party in breach has failed to discharge the burden of proving performance once the existence of the debt is established.
Contract Law — Termination — Notice Requirements
A contract providing for termination upon seven days' advance written notice cannot be lawfully terminated by immediate email notification without affording the required notice period. Termination in violation of contractual notice provisions constitutes breach.
Contract Law — Quantum Meruit — Entitlement After Unlawful Termination
Where a contract is terminated in breach and without lawful justification, the innocent party is entitled to quantum meruit for work properly executed and accepted up to the termination date, particularly where the contract itself provides that upon termination the supplier shall be entitled to receive payment for work properly executed.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Ex Parte Proceedings
A party who bears the burden of proof must produce credible evidence of facts in issue. Where a defendant fails to enter appearance and lead evidence, and the plaintiff adduces unchallenged documentary and testimonial evidence proving breach, judgment will be entered for the plaintiff.
Damages & Quantum — Special Damages — Proof Requirements
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved, but strict proof does not require documentary evidence alone. Special damages can be proved by direct testimonial evidence or receipts showing expenditure, particularly where such evidence is unchallenged by the defendant.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (23)

  • John Bwiza v Patrick Yowasi Kadama (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2011)
  • William Kasozi v DFCU Bank Ltd (HCCS No. 1326 of 2000)
  • Meridiana Africa Airlines (U) Ltd v Avmax Spares (EA) Ltd (Civil Suit No. 111 of 2017)
  • Omega Bank Plc Vs O.B.C. Limited (2005) 8 NWLR (pt.928)
  • Fina Bank Ltd Vs Spares and Industries Ltd (2000) 1 EA 52
  • Godfrey Ssebanakita v Fuelex (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 04 of 2016)
  • Cheng Chao and 2 Others v Zhang Jun and 3 Others (Civil Suit No. 220 of 2020)
  • Wagagai Mining (U) Ltd & Others v Freight Sendy Limited & Others (HCCS No. 895 of 2020)
  • Kesacon Services Ltd v Stanbic Bank Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 109 of 2022)
  • Mugabi John v Attorney General (HCCS No. 133 of 2002)
  • W.M Kyambadde Vs Mpigi District Administration [1983] HCB 44
  • Gapco (U) Ltd v A.S Transporters (U) Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2004)
  • Haji Asuman Mutekanga v Equator Growers (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1995)
  • Luzinda Marion Babirye v Ssekamatte (Alias Mulwana Samuel) & Others (Civil Suit No. 366 of 2017)
  • Obongo & Another Vs Municipal Council of Kisumu [1971] E.A. 91
  • O'Connor Vs Hewitson [1979] Crim. LR 46, CA
  • Archer Vs Brown [1985] QB 401
  • Kabandize John Baptist and 21 Others v Kampala Capital City Authority (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 36 of 2016)
  • Takiya Kashwahiri & Another v Kajungu Denis (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 85 of 2011)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank Vs Deo Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
  • Milly Masembe v Sugar Corporation (U) Ltd and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2000)
  • Mohanlal Kakubhai Radia v Warid Telecom Uganda Ltd (HCCS No. 224 of 2011)
  • Uganda Development Bank Vs Muganga Construction Co. Ltd [1981] H.C.B 35

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Omap Uganda Limited v Imathia Construction S.L (Civil Suit No. 1327 of 2024) [2026] UGCommC 223 (23 April 2026)
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.