Wakilii

Pramukh Steel Limited v Guangzhou Donsong Energy Group (U) Co. Limited (Civil Suit 22 of 2021)

High Court · [2023] UGCOMMC 176 · 2023 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of debt following interlocutory judgment entered after defendant failed to file defence
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff with orders for payment of debt, interest, general damages 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

The court entered judgment for the plaintiff in a debt recovery suit after the defendant failed to file a defence. The court clarified the distinction between default judgments, interlocutory judgments and ex parte proceedings under Order 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Where an interlocutory judgment is entered for a claim including general damages, formal proof of quantum is required. The plaintiff established supply of steel products and non-payment of the outstanding balance.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff with orders for payment of debt, interest, general damages and costs

Facts

Between January 2019 and September 2019, the plaintiff supplied various steel products to the defendant worth USD 190,372.197. The defendant paid USD 115,843.500 leaving an unpaid balance of USD 74,528.697. Despite demands for payment, the defendant failed to settle the outstanding amount. The plaintiff filed suit for recovery of the debt. The defendant was served with court summons on 17 March 2021 but failed to file a defence. The court entered an interlocutory judgment on 17 October 2021 and set the matter down for formal proof. At the formal proof hearing, the plaintiff's Sales and Dispatch Manager testified and produced delivery notes, invoices and ledger account statements evidencing the supplies and outstanding balance.

Issues

  1. Whether the Defendant is indebted to the Plaintiff for the sum of USD 74,528.697
  2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the remedies sought

Orders

  • The defendant shall pay the plaintiff USD 74,528.697 being the outstanding balance for the supplied steel products.
  • Interest awarded on the principal sum at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing suit until payment in full.
  • The plaintiff is awarded general damages of UGX 50,000,000.
  • Interest awarded on the general damages at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • The plaintiff is awarded the costs of this suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Default Proceedings — Distinction between Default Judgment, Interlocutory Judgment and Ex Parte Proceedings
A default judgment under Order 9 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules is entered where there is no defence filed to a plaint claiming a liquidated demand, and there is no requirement for formal proof. An interlocutory judgment under Order 9 rule 8 is entered where there is no defence filed to a plaint claiming pecuniary damages only or detention of goods with or without pecuniary damages, and the suit is set down for formal proof to assess the value of damages or goods. Under Order 9 rules 10 and 11(2), a court may set down a suit to be heard ex parte where there is no defence in all other suits not provided for under the rules.
Civil Procedure — Interlocutory Judgment — Effect on Liability
Where an interlocutory judgment has been entered in favour of the plaintiff, the question of liability of the defendant is no longer in issue; what is in issue is the assessment of the quantum of damages.
Civil Procedure — Undefended Suits — Plaintiff's Burden of Proof
A party who does not enter appearance and file a written statement of defence is deemed to have admitted the allegations in the plaint. However, a plaintiff has a duty to prove his case on a balance of probabilities even where a matter is undefended.
Contract Law — Interest — Rate of Interest on Commercial Debts in Foreign Currency
Where a debt is denominated in US dollars arising from a commercial transaction, an interest rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing suit until payment in full is reasonable.
Contract Law — Damages — General Damages for Breach of Contract
The fundamental principle by which courts are guided in awarding damages is restitutio in integrum. The law will endeavour, so far as money can do, to place the injured person in the same situation as if the contract had been performed. To be eligible for an award of damages, the party should have suffered loss or inconvenience to justify the award.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (8)

  • Smith v Auto Electric Services Ltd (1951) 24 KLR 22
  • Haji Asuman Mutekanga v Equator Growers (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 07 of 1995)
  • A Nsubuga v PN Kavuma (1978) HCB 307
  • Clessy Barya v Jomo Robert & 3 Others (Civil Suit No. 894 of 2019)
  • Ecobank Uganda Limited v LB Construction & Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 574 of 2012)
  • Simon Mbalire v Moses Mukiibi (High Court Civil Suit No. 85 of 1995)
  • Mwesigwa Warren v Kiiza (Civil Suit No. 320 of 2015)
  • Musisi Edward v Babihuga Hilda (2007) HCB 84

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.

Pramukh Steel Limited v Guangzhou Donsong Energy Group (U) Co. Limited (Civil Suit 22 of 2021) [2023] UGCommC 176 (31 May 2023)
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.