Wakilii

Paul Kyabaggu Mawand v Mani Stephen and Another (Civil Suit No. 223 of 2015)

High Court · [2017] UGCOMMC 268 · 2017 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, proceeding ex-parte on default judgment
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff with refund of consideration, general damages, interest, and costs

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 where a vendor sells land to which they have no title, they breach the sales agreement and must refund the purchase price paid. The plaintiff purchased land from the defendants for UGX 90,000,000, paying UGX 80,000,000. The land belonged to a third party, Beatrice Nakabiito Deborah. The defendants breached the warranty of good title in the sales agreement. The court ordered refund of UGX 80,000,000, general damages of UGX 10,000,000, interest at 6% per annum, and costs.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff with refund of consideration, general damages, interest, and costs

Facts

The plaintiff, a businessman dealing in land purchase and sale, entered into a sales agreement dated 16 August 2013 with the defendants to purchase land comprised in Block 70 Plot 33 at Bugai & Bumonzi measuring 12 acres for UGX 90,000,000. The plaintiff paid UGX 80,000,000: UGX 40,000,000 by Centenary Bank cheque No. 541 and UGX 40,000,000 offset from money the defendants owed him from a previous transaction. A balance of UGX 10,000,000 was to be paid upon production of the certificate of title. The sales agreement contained warranties that the property was unencumbered and the plaintiff would have quiet enjoyment. The plaintiff later discovered that the land belonged to Beatrice Nakabiito Deborah, not to the defendants. Counsel for the plaintiff wrote to the defendants on 2 June 2014 demanding refund of the UGX 80,000,000. The defendants did not respond or refund the money. Default judgment was entered against the defendants on 15 September 2015 and the matter proceeded to formal proof.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendants breached the Sales Agreement
  2. What remedies are available to the plaintiff

Orders

  • The plaintiff is entitled to a refund of UGX 80,000,000 that he advanced to the defendants as consideration under a sales agreement which was breached by the defendants.
  • Interest is awarded on the sum at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the suit till payment in full.
  • The plaintiff is awarded general damages of UGX 10,000,000.
  • Interest is awarded on general damages at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of judgment till payment in full.
  • The plaintiff is awarded costs of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Sale of Land — Warranty of Title — Vendor's Obligation to Pass Good Title
A vendor in a sales agreement can only pass good title to a purchaser. Where the vendor has no title to the land sold, they cannot pass title to the purchaser and are in breach of the sales agreement.
Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Warranty — Right to Refund of Consideration
Where a vendor breaches a sales agreement by selling land to which they have no title, the purchaser is entitled to a refund of the consideration paid.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Measure of Damages — Breach of Contract
The measure of damages is that sum of money which will put the party who has been injured in the same position as he would have been in if he had not sustained the wrong for which he is now getting compensation.
Damages & Quantum — Interest — Discretionary Award — Rate Where Not Agreed by Parties
Where interest has not been agreed on by the parties, the court is enjoined to award interest that is just and reasonable.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (5)

  • Kibimba Rice Ltd v Umar Salim (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1992)
  • Livingstone v Royonard's Coal Co. (1880) 5 App. Case 259
  • Hardley v Baxendale (1894) 9 Exch 341
  • Mohanlal K. Radia v Warid Telecom Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 234 of 2011)
  • Bhatia v Crane Bank Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 75 of 2010)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Paul Kyabaggu Mawand v Mani Stephen and Another (Civil Suit No. 223 of 2015) [2017] UGCommC 268 (10 March 2017)
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.