Wakilii

Pride Trading Company Limited v v Hydro Uganda Limited (Civil Suit No. 469 of 2019)

High Court · [2024] UGCOMMC 429 · 2024 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 partial consent judgment
Decision
Judgment for plaintiff with recovery of UGX 22,242,600 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

The High Court Commercial Division held that the plaintiff discharged the burden of proving delivery of goods to the defendant through goods received notes. The court awarded recovery of UGX 22,242,600, being the amount proven on a balance of probabilities through documentary evidence, rather than the full claim of UGX 31,400,100. The defendant, having failed to file evidence despite multiple adjournments, did not discharge the burden of proving payment.

Outcome

Judgment for plaintiff with recovery of UGX 22,242,600 and costs

Facts

Between May 2017 and June 2018, the plaintiff supplied construction materials worth UGX 506,033,850 to the defendant on credit. The defendant paid UGX 409,396,000, leaving UGX 96,637,850 outstanding. In June 2019, the plaintiff filed suit and the parties entered partial consent judgment for UGX 65,237,750, leaving UGX 31,400,100 in dispute. During reconciliation, the plaintiff claimed to have delivered goods worth UGX 31,342,000. The defendant's counsel failed to file witness statements despite multiple adjournments, and the case proceeded under Order 17 Rule 4 CPR. The plaintiff adduced goods received notes totaling UGX 22,242,600.

Issues

  1. Whether the Defendant is indebted to the Plaintiff in the sum of UGX 31,400,100.
  2. What remedies are available?

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the plaintiff.
  • An order for recovery of UGX 22,242,600 (Uganda Shillings Twenty-Two Million Two Hundred Forty-Two Thousand Six Hundred only).
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Burden of Proof — Recovery of Debt — Party Alleging Debt Must Prove Delivery of Goods
In a suit for recovery of debt for goods supplied, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving delivery of the goods to the defendant on a balance of probabilities, whereupon the burden shifts to the defendant to prove payment.
Evidence — Documentary Evidence — Goods Received Notes — Proof of Delivery
Goods received notes constitute sufficient documentary evidence to prove delivery of goods where the defendant has failed to adduce evidence to contradict the plaintiff's claim.
Civil Procedure — Failure to File Witness Statement — Proceeding Under Order 17 Rule 4
Where a party fails to file witness statements despite being granted multiple adjournments, the court may proceed under Order 17 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules and determine the suit on the evidence adduced by the other party.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Discretion of Court — Costs Follow the Event
Costs of and incidental to all suits are in the discretion of the court, and ordinarily follow the event unless there are good reasons to deny costs to the successful party.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (8)

  • JK Patel v Spear Motors Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1991)
  • Viva General Merchandise Limited v De Waste Uganda Limited (High Court Civil Suit No. 994 of 2020)
  • Kyadok Hardware Limited v Kwik Build Contractors Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 40 of 2014)
  • Jovelyn Barugahare v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 28 of 1993)
  • Kamo Enterprises Ltd v Krystalline Salt Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2018)
  • Miller Vs Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 ALLER 372
  • Gulaballi Ushillani v Kampala Pharmaceuticals Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1998)
  • Behange & 2 Others v School Outfitters (U) Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 53 of 1999)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Pride Trading Company Limited v VS Hydro Uganda Limited (Civil Suit No. 469 of 2019) [2024] UGCommC 429 (11 October 2024)
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.