Wakilii

Oxalis Consult Limited v East African Power Limited (Civil Suit No. 899 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 259 · 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 for failure to file defence
Decision
Judgment entered for the Plaintiff with full contractual sum, general damages, interest, and costs awarded

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 held that where a plaintiff performs consultancy services under a contract and the defendant fails to pay despite acknowledging receipt and acceptability of the work, the plaintiff is entitled to the full contract price. The court awarded the contractual sum of USD 38,760, general damages of UGX 30,000,000 for financial and operational strain caused by non-payment, interest at 24% per annum on the contract sum and 6% on general damages, and costs. Aggravated and punitive damages were declined for lack of evidence of malice.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the Plaintiff with full contractual sum, general damages, interest, and costs awarded

Facts

On 22 March 2024, the Defendant engaged the Plaintiff to perform specialized consultancy services for a Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) for the Rubabo Small Hydro Power Project in Rukungiri District. The contract was for four months commencing 25 March 2024, with payment of USD 38,760 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 deployed eight specialist professionals, conducted field work across 16 villages, and submitted a comprehensive draft RAP report on 5 June 2024. On 26 June 2024, the Defendant's Director of Sustainability acknowledged receipt and confirmed the report was acceptable, promising payment. Despite multiple reminders and a formal demand notice on 28 March 2025, the Defendant failed to make any payment. The Defendant was served with summons but failed to file a defence, leading to interlocutory judgment under Order 9 rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

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 of Contract — Measure of Damages — Full Contract Price
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, particularly where the pleaded sum is supported by documentary evidence and has not been challenged by the defendant.
Civil Procedure — Interlocutory Judgment — Effect of Failure to File Defence
A defendant who fails to file a written statement of defence is deemed to have admitted the allegations in the plaint. When interlocutory judgment has been entered in favour of the plaintiff, breach of the agreement is not in issue; what remains is the quantum of damages. However, the plaintiff still bears the burden to prove its case to the required standard.
Contract Law — General Damages — Compensatory Nature — Financial Strain from Non-Payment
General damages for breach of contract should be compensatory in nature, restoring as far as money can satisfaction to the injured plaintiff. Where a plaintiff deploys specialist professionals and relies on its own funds to meet contractual obligations due to the defendant's failure to pay an advance, the plaintiff is entitled to general damages for the financial, emotional, and time constraints caused by the breach.
Damages & Quantum — Aggravated and Punitive Damages — Requirements for Award
Aggravated damages may be awarded when a court is making a general award and may take into account factors such as malice or arrogance on the part of the defendant, which increase the injury suffered by the plaintiff. Punitive damages should not be used to enrich the plaintiff but to punish the defendant and deter repetition of conduct. Where no evidence has been adduced to demonstrate malice on the part of the defendant, aggravated and punitive damages will not be granted.
Damages & Quantum — Interest — Just and Reasonable Rate — Commercial Contracts
In determining a just and reasonable rate of interest, courts take into account the ever-rising inflation and drastic depreciation of the currency. A plaintiff is entitled to such rate of interest as would not neglect the prevailing economic value of money but would insulate the plaintiff against economic vagaries and the inflation and depreciation of the currency. Where a plaintiff is a business entity forced to spend its own money contrary to the contract, a higher rate of interest on the decretal sum is justified.

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 [1996] UGSC 12
  • 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. 04 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 (Civil Suit No. 899 of 2025) [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.