Wakilii

Opia v Chukia & 5 Ors (CIVIL SUIT No. 0022 OF 2013)

High Court · [2016] UGHCCD 117 · 2016 Judgment for Plaintiff (against 1st Defendant only) AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for breach of contract
Decision
Suit dismissed against defendants 2-6. First defendant liable to pay special damages (the loan), general damages calculated as interest for period of breach, and costs.

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 2 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 judgment on admission against defendants 2-6 was erroneously entered and set aside, as their written statement of defence contained clear denials of liability despite the signed agreement. The agreement was unenforceable against them for want of consideration. The defence of non est factum failed, but the promise was gratuitous. Judgment entered for the plaintiff against the first defendant only for the debt owed plus general damages calculated on the basis of interest at 11% per annum for the period of breach.

Outcome

Suit dismissed against defendants 2-6. First defendant liable to pay special damages (the loan), general damages calculated as interest for period of breach, and costs.

Facts

The plaintiff, a trader based in Juba, South Sudan, loaned the first defendant UGX 8,000,000 and later US $ 30,000 for business purposes. When the first defendant failed to repay, the plaintiff convened a meeting on 10 May 2013 at the first defendant's home in Arua attended by her siblings (defendants 2-6) and the plaintiff's lawyer. At that meeting, all defendants signed a written agreement undertaking to pay the debt within six weeks. When payment was not made, the plaintiff sued all defendants for breach of contract. During the course of trial, the first defendant deposited US $ 4,000 and UGX 2,000,000 in court. An earlier judge entered judgment on admission against all defendants. Defendants 2-6 contended they signed as witnesses only, not as parties, and that the document was not translated into Lugbara, which they understood better than English. The first defendant argued the debt was conditional on her selling property, which had not yet occurred.

Issues

  1. Whether judgment on admission was properly entered against all the defendants under Order 13 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. Whether the second to sixth defendants were bound by the agreement (exhibit P.E.1) to repay the first defendant's debt.
  3. Whether the defence of non est factum was available to the second to sixth defendants on grounds that the agreement was not translated into Lugbara.
  4. Whether the agreement was enforceable against the second to sixth defendants in absence of consideration moving from the plaintiff to them.
  5. What damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to for breach of contract by the first defendant.

Orders

  • Suit against the second to sixth defendants dismissed with no order as to costs.
  • Judgment on admission entered by the earlier judge against defendants 2-6 is hereby set aside.
  • Judgment entered for the plaintiff against the first defendant for special damages of US $ 30,000 or its equivalent in Uganda shillings and UGX 8,000,000, less the amount paid during the course of the trial.
  • General damages of UGX 11,935,000 awarded to the plaintiff against the first defendant.
  • Interest on the decretal amount at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff against the first defendant.

Rules and key headnotes

Judgment on Admission — Requirements for Exercise of Discretion
The power to enter judgment on admission under Order 13 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules is discretionary and must be exercised only in plain cases where the admissions of fact are so clear and unequivocal that they amount to an admission of liability entitling the plaintiff to judgment. Where the defendant has raised objections which go to the very root of the case, it is not appropriate to exercise this discretion.
Judgment on Admission — Pleadings Must Be Read as a Whole
A pleading must be construed as a whole to determine its effect. One or two lines or a single paragraph cannot be taken out of context and used as an admission entitling a party to judgment on admission. Where one paragraph appears to admit a claim but another paragraph denies liability, the admission is not clear and unequivocal.
Inherent Jurisdiction — Correction of Errors by Court Seized of Matter
Under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act and section 17(2) of the Judicature Act, the High Court has inherent jurisdiction to correct its own errors while still seized of a matter, where there is an error apparent on the face of the record and where such correction is necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process, without the court appearing to sit on appeal on its own decision.
Non Est Factum — Requirements and Burden of Proof
The defence of non est factum allows a party who signed a document to escape performance where the document is fundamentally different from what he or she intended to sign. The burden of establishing this defence is heavy and falls on the party seeking to disown the document. A person of full age and understanding is normally bound by his signature to a document whether he reads or understands it or not. Carelessness or failure to read an agreement before signing will not allow for non est factum.
Consideration — Past Consideration Not Valid
For a promise to be legally binding, consideration must be given in return for the promise or act of the other party. Consideration must not be past. Where a party undertakes to pay a debt owed by another without receiving any corresponding promise, act, or forbearance from the creditor in return for that promise, the promise is gratuitous and unenforceable for want of consideration.
Damages for Breach — Remoteness and Measure
In a claim for damages for breach of contract, the principle in Hadley v Baxendale applies: damages are recoverable only if they arise naturally from the breach or were reasonably contemplated by both parties as a probable result of the breach. Where damages are claimed for failure to repay money on the agreed date, the normal measure of damages is the interest which the money would attract during the period of breach.
Damages — Proof Required
Before assessment of damages can be made, the plaintiff must furnish evidence to warrant the award of damages and provide facts that would form the basis of assessment. Failure to adduce cogent evidence of loss is fatal to a claim for damages.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (17)

  • Cassam v Sachania [1982] KLR 191
  • Industrial and Commercial Development Corporation v Daber Enterprises Ltd [2000] 1 EA 75
  • Continental Butchery Ltd v Ndhiwa [1989] KLR 573
  • Bremer Vulcan Schiffban and Maschinenfabrik v South India Shipping Corp [1981] All ER 289
  • Saunders v Anglia Building Society [1971] AC 1004
  • Saunders v Anglia Building Society [1970] 3 All ER 961
  • Foster v Mackinnon
  • Muskham Finance Ltd v Howard [1963] 1 QB 904
  • Currie v Misa (1875) LR 10 Exch 153
  • Dunlop v Selfridge Ltd [1915] AC 847
  • Roscorla v Thomas (1842) 3 QB 234
  • Eastwood v Kenyon (1840) 113 ER 482
  • R v Clark (1927) 40 CLR 227
  • Greenboat Entertainment Ltd v City Council of Kampala (Civil Suit No. 580 of 2003)
  • Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Ex 341
  • Neville v London Express Newspaper Ltd [1919] AC 368
  • Sowah v Bank for Housing & Construction [1982-83] 2 GLR 1324

Cases citing this judgment (2)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Opia v Chukia & 5 Ors (CIVIL SUIT No. 0022 OF 2013) [2016] UGHCCD 117 (1 December 2016)
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.