Wakilii

Q.B. KITARA MACMOT T/A OUGEYA SUPPLIES Ltd v.CATHOLIC RELIEF SERVICE (CRS) UGANDA (HCT-02-CV-CS- 0121 OF 2001) (HCT-02-CV-CS-0121 of 2001)

High Court · [2003] UGHC 30 · 2003 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
Decision
Judgment awarded to the plaintiff for the unpaid contract price with interest; general damages claim dismissed

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 a valid contract existed between the parties, evidenced by offer, acceptance, and part payment of the contract price. The defendant breached the contract by failing to pay the outstanding balance of 75% of the contract price after the plaintiff had fully performed by delivering 880 bags of groundnuts. The plaintiff was awarded the unpaid contract price of UGX 32,824,000 with interest at 28% from judgment until payment in full, but general damages for loss of business profits were refused for failure to prove the losses were within the reasonable contemplation of the parties at the time of contracting.

Outcome

Judgment awarded to the plaintiff for the unpaid contract price with interest; general damages claim dismissed

Facts

On 26 July 2001, the plaintiff submitted a quotation to supply 880 bags of unshelled groundnuts to the defendant at UGX 46,400 per bag plus UGX 2,500 per bag for transport. On 3 August 2001, the defendant accepted the offer by purchase order and paid a 25% down payment of UGX 10,208,000. The plaintiff completed delivery of all 880 bags by 4 September 2001, with all deliveries accepted by the defendant's employee. The contract provided that the balance of 75% plus transport costs would be paid within one week after delivery. The defendant failed to pay the outstanding balance of UGX 32,824,000 despite demand. The plaintiff sued for breach of contract. The defendant filed a written statement of defence denying the existence of any contract, but led no evidence at trial.

Issues

  1. Whether there was a contract between the parties.
  2. Whether the terms of the contract were breached.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Judgment awarded to the plaintiff for the balance of the unpaid contract price of UGX 32,824,000.
  • Interest awarded at 28% per annum on the principal sum from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Claim for general damages for financial suffering and loss of business profits dismissed.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Formation — Essential Elements — Offer, Acceptance, and Consideration
For an agreement to be contractual, there must be an offer and acceptance. Offer means an expression of willingness to contract made with the intention that it shall become binding on the person making it as soon as it is accepted by the person to whom it is addressed. Acceptance is an unqualified expression of assent to the terms of an offer. Where an offer is accepted and consideration provided, a valid contract is formed.
Contract Law — Written Contracts — Parol Evidence Rule
Where a contract is in writing and its terms are obvious and unambiguous, no extrinsic evidence may be called to add to or deduct from its terms.
Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Non-Payment of Contract Price
A contract is breached when one or both parties fail to honour the obligations imposed by the terms of the contract. Where one party is under a contractual obligation to pay a specific sum of money to the other party and there is a total or partial failure to pay according to the contract, the aggrieved party is entitled to sue for the contractual price.
Contract Law — Damages — General Damages for Breach — Requirement of Reasonable Contemplation
General damages for non-payment of contract price are only recoverable where the alleged loss was within the reasonable contemplation of the parties at the time of making the agreement and the alleged loss is the direct result of the breach of contract by non-payment of the price.

Cases cited (3)

  • Nakawa Trading Co Ltd v Coffee Marketing Board (HCCS No. 137 of 1991)
  • Ramanbai Patel v M/S Madhvani International Ltd [1992-93] HCB 189
  • Justine Oijo v Attorney General (HCCS No. 2 of 1994)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Q.B. KITARA MACMOT T_A OUGEYA SUPPLIES Ltd v.CATHOLIC RELIEF SERVICE (CRS) UGANDA (HCT-02-CV-CS- 0121 OF 2001) (HCT-02-CV-CS-0121 of 2001) [2003] UGHC 30 (30 May 2003)
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.