Wakilii

Pramukh Steel Limited v Jiangxi Waterand Hydro Power Construction Company Limited [2025] UGCOMMC 557

High Court · 2025 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 arising from supply of goods; interlocutory judgment entered after defendant failed to file defence; formal proof hearing
Decision
Judgment entered for the Plaintiff for USD 46,440 with interest at court rate from judgment date 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 an implied contract existed between the parties based on their conduct, evidenced by repeated supply of goods, acceptance of deliveries with signed delivery notes, and partial payment. The defendant's failure to pay the outstanding balance of USD 46,440 for TMT steel bars supplied constituted breach of contract. Judgment entered for the plaintiff for the outstanding sum with interest at court rate from judgment date and costs.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the Plaintiff for USD 46,440 with interest at court rate from judgment date and costs

Facts

The Plaintiff, a supplier of TMT steel bars, supplied goods to the Defendant on four occasions between March and July 2021: on 8th March 2021 (USD 28,154.77), 10th March 2021 (USD 28,647), 18th May 2021 (USD 10,148), and 7th July 2021 (USD 9,912), totalling USD 76,861.77. The Defendant accepted the deliveries, as evidenced by signed delivery notes, and made a partial payment of USD 30,448.77, leaving an outstanding balance of USD 46,440. Despite repeated demands for payment, the Defendant failed to pay the balance. The Defendant did not file a defence despite being served, and interlocutory judgment was entered on 15th November 2024.

Issues

  1. Whether there was a breach of contract.
  2. Whether the Defendant is indebted to the Plaintiff for the sums claimed.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the sum of USD 46,440.
  • The decretal sum shall attract interest at court rate per annum from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • The Plaintiff is awarded costs of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Implied Contracts — Formation from Conduct of Parties
An implied contract can be inferred from the conduct of the parties and surrounding circumstances, including a consistent pattern of supply, acceptance of goods evidenced by signed delivery notes, and partial payment, which together demonstrate the parties' intention to be bound.
Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Failure to Pay for Goods Supplied
Where a party accepts delivery of goods under an implied contract and makes partial payment, the failure to pay the outstanding balance constitutes a breach of the contractual obligation to pay for goods supplied.
Evidence — Documentary Evidence — Proof of Debt by Delivery Notes and Invoices
Delivery notes and tax invoices, when consistent on their face, bearing sequential numbering, corresponding in dates and amounts, containing acknowledgments of receipt, and supported by oral testimony, constitute sufficient prima facie proof of supply of goods and indebtedness, especially where the defendant fails to contest the claim.
Civil Procedure — Interlocutory Judgment — Effect of Failure to File Defence
Where a defendant fails to file a defence despite being served, the court may enter interlocutory judgment and set the matter down for formal proof, and the defendant's failure to contest is taken as a failure to dispute the facts pleaded, relieving the plaintiff of the burden to prove them further under Section 57 of the Evidence Act.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (3)

  • Peter Jogo Tabu T/A M/S Ayume, Jogo Tabu & Co. Advocates v The Registered Trustees of the Church of the Province of Uganda (High Court Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2017)
  • Ronald Kasibante v Shell Uganda Ltd (HCCS No. 542 of 2006)
  • Kinyera v The Management Committee of Laroo Building Primary School (HCCS No. 099 of 2013)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Pramukh Steel Limited v Jiangxi Waterand Hydro Power Construction Company Limited 2025 UGCommC 557 (26 August 2025)
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.