Wakilii

Oxalis Consult Limited v East African Power Limited [2026] UGCOMMC 259

High Court · 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 with interlocutory judgment entered under Order 9 rule 8 following defendant's failure to file defence
Decision
Suit succeeded with full contractual sum, general damages, interest and costs awarded to Plaintiff

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 court held that where a plaintiff performs consultancy services under a contract and the defendant fails to pay despite acknowledging receipt and acceptability of deliverables, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the full contract price. An interlocutory judgment entered under Order 9 rule 8 following failure to file defence admits the breach; the remaining issue is quantum. The court awarded the contractual sum of USD 38,760, general damages of UGX 30,000,000, interest at 24% on the contract sum and 6% on general damages, and costs, but declined aggravated and punitive damages where no malice was shown.

Outcome

Suit succeeded with full contractual sum, general damages, interest and costs awarded to Plaintiff

Facts

On 22 March 2024, the defendant contracted the plaintiff to perform specialized consultancy services in a Resettlement Action Plan for the Rubabo Small Hydro Power Project in Rukungiri District for four months commencing 25 March 2024. The contract price was USD 38,760, payable in three instalments: an advance upon execution, 50% upon submission of acceptable RAP reports, and 20% upon approval by the Chief Government Valuer. The plaintiff completed comprehensive field work across 16 villages, submitted a draft RAP report on 5 June 2024, and issued invoices on 6 June 2024 for 80% of the contract sum. On 26 June 2024, the defendant's Director of Sustainability acknowledged receipt and confirmed the report was acceptable. On 5 July 2024, the same director confirmed satisfactory execution and urged immediate payment. Despite multiple reminders through July, August, October and December 2024, and a formal demand notice on 28 March 2025 acknowledged by the defendant on 29 March 2025, no payment was made. The defendant failed to file a defence by 11 November 2025, resulting in an interlocutory judgment under Order 9 rule 8.

Issues

  1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the payment of USD 38,760?
  2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to general damages?
  3. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to aggravated and punitive damages, interest and costs of the suit?

Orders

  • The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff USD 38,760 (United States Dollars Thirty-Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty Only), being the contractual sum for the services performed by the Plaintiff.
  • The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff general damages of UGX 30,000,000 (Uganda Shillings Thirty Million only).
  • The Defendant shall pay interest on the decretal sum at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of filing the suit until payment in full and 6% on the general damages from the date of the Judgment until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit are awarded to the Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Breach — Recovery of Contract Price — Full Price Due Where Services Rendered and Not Paid
A plaintiff who has rendered services under a contract and received nothing is entitled to the full contract price as the direct measure of loss caused by the breach under section 60(1) of the Contracts Act.
Civil Procedure — Interlocutory Judgment — Effect of Failure to File Defence — Admission of Breach
A defendant who fails to file a written statement of defence is deemed to have admitted the allegations in the plaint. Where an interlocutory judgment has been entered under Order 9 rule 8, breach of the agreement is not in issue; what remains is the quantum of damages.
Contract Law — Evidence — Unchallenged Contractual Sum — Court Entitled to Award in Full
Where a pleaded sum is supported by documentary evidence and has not been challenged by the defendant, the court is entitled to award it in full.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Assessment — Breach of Contract Causing Financial Burden
General damages should be compensatory in nature, restoring, as far as money can, satisfaction to the injured plaintiff. Where a plaintiff deploys specialist personnel and uses its own funds throughout contract performance due to the defendant's breach in failing to pay an advance, the plaintiff is entitled to general damages for the financial, emotional, and time constraints caused by efforts to secure payment.
Damages & Quantum — Aggravated and Punitive Damages — Malice Requirement — Breach Alone Insufficient
Aggravated and punitive damages require evidence of malice, arrogance, or conduct warranting enhanced compensation or punishment. Breach of contract alone, without evidence of malicious conduct, does not warrant an award of aggravated or punitive damages.
Damages & Quantum — Interest — Differential Rates — Contract Sum and General Damages
Under section 26(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, courts may award interest at a rate that is just and reasonable, taking into account inflation, currency depreciation, and the prevailing economic value of money. A higher rate of interest may be justified on a contractual debt owed to a business entity that was forced to spend its own money contrary to the contract, while a lower rate may be appropriate for general damages.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (21)

  • Oriental Insurance Brokers Limited v Transocean (U) Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1995)
  • Nsibambi Mudashiru v Kasule Joseph (High Court Civil Suit No. 244 of 2014)
  • Roko Construction Co. Ltd v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 517 of 2008)
  • Banamukozi Holdings Limited v Credo Link Agencies Uganda Limited & Another (High Court Civil Suit No. 954 of 2023)
  • John Bwiza v Patrick Yowasi Kadama (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2011)
  • Smith Vs Auto Electric Services Ltd [1951] 24 KLR 22
  • Haji Asuman Mutekanga v Equator Growers (U) Limited (Supreme Court, 29 July 1996)
  • Dr. Denis Lwamafa v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 79 of 1983)
  • Nekesa Emen v Abura Thomas & On 2 One Logistics Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 237 of 2019)
  • Security Group v Xerox Uganda Limited (High Court Civil Suit No. 572 of 2006)
  • Turyatebwa David v Musinguzi Jackson (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2013)
  • Kabandize John Baptist and 21 Others v Kampala Capital City Authority (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 36 of 2016)
  • Takiya Kashwahiri and Another v Kajungu Denis (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 85 of 2011)
  • Fredrick J.K. Zaabwe v Orient Bank Ltd & Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006)
  • Obongo & Another Vs Municipal Council of Kisumu [1971] E. A 91
  • Luzinda Marion Babirye v Ssekamatte (Alias Mulwana Samuel) & Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 366 of 2017)
  • O'Connor Vs Hewitson [1979] Crim. LR 46, CA
  • Archer Vs Brown [1985] QB 401
  • 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 (High Court Civil Suit 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.

Oxalis Consult Limited v East African Power Limited 2026 UGCommC 259 (21 May 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.