Wakilii

Que Zhangshu and Another v Ham Mizamil Ezama (Civil Suit No. 13 of 2020)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 885 · 2025 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 and recovery of debt, proceeding ex parte after defendant failed to file defence
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiffs with recovery of principal loan amount, interest, and general damages; defendant liable for costs

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 7 (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 7 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations rising — 8 citing cases on record, 6 in the most recent three data years. 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 High Court held that the defendant breached a loan contract by failing to repay UGX 50,000,000 secured by a land title within the agreed fifteen-day period. The court awarded the plaintiffs the principal sum plus interest at 18% per annum from the date of default and general damages of UGX 10,000,000 for business stress and inconvenience. Claims for vehicle repair costs and converted rent monies failed for lack of evidence linking the defendant to those losses.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiffs with recovery of principal loan amount, interest, and general damages; defendant liable for costs

Facts

The plaintiffs loaned UGX 50,000,000 to the defendant on 22 October 2021, secured by the defendant's land title for property at FRV ARU50 Folio 16, Plot 409, Block 1 in Ewuta. Under a memorandum of understanding, the defendant agreed to repay the loan within fifteen days, failing which the property would be sold to recover the debt. The defendant did not repay the loan. The plaintiffs also alleged the defendant lured their security guard to steal their vehicle, causing UGX 15,000,000 in repair costs, and that the defendant collected UGX 8,000,000 from their former tenant but never transmitted it. The defendant was served with summons but did not file a defence. The Registrar granted default judgment and the matter proceeded ex parte.

Issues

  1. Whether the Defendant is indebted to the Plaintiffs.
  2. What remedies are available to the Parties?

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the plaintiffs.
  • Defendant to pay UGX 50,000,000 to the plaintiffs.
  • Interest awarded at 18% per annum on UGX 50,000,000 from the date of default until payment in full.
  • General damages of UGX 10,000,000 awarded to the plaintiffs for business stress and inconvenience.
  • Claim for UGX 8,000,000 as converted money dismissed.
  • Claim for UGX 15,000,000 in vehicle repair costs dismissed.
  • Claim for UGX 7,590,000 in legal costs dismissed.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiffs.
  • Prayer for interest on costs denied.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Failure to Repay Loan
Breach of contract occurs when a party fails to perform an obligation imposed by the contract, entitling the injured party to treat the contract as discharged and to sue for damages.
Contract Law — Remedies — Interest on Debt
Under Section 26(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, a court may award interest on a principal sum adjudged from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, and further interest on the aggregate sum from the date of the decree to the date of payment, at such rate as the court deems reasonable having regard to the commercial nature of the transaction and prevailing economic conditions.
Contract Law — Damages — General Damages for Breach
Under Section 61 of the Contracts Act, a party suffering breach of contract is entitled to compensation for any loss or damage caused by the breach, including general damages for business stress, financial loss, and inconvenience, assessed with regard to the value of the subject matter and the nature and extent of the breach.
Civil Procedure — Burden and Standard of Proof — Balance of Probabilities
In civil proceedings, the burden of proof lies on the party alleging a fact to prove that fact on the balance of probabilities, meaning the court must be satisfied that the existence of the facts sought to be proved is so probable that a prudent person ought to act on the supposition that they exist.
Civil Procedure — Default Judgment — Failure to Prove Claim
Even where judgment is entered by default and the matter proceeds ex parte, the plaintiff must adduce sufficient evidence to prove each head of claim; claims unsupported by evidence will be dismissed notwithstanding the defendant's absence.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (12)

  • Premier Commodities (U) Ltd v Kiir for Services & Construction Co. Limited (HCCS No. 126 of 2019)
  • Senkungu Yakobo and Others v Mukasa Cresensio (SCCA No. 17 of 2014)
  • Takiya Kashwahiri and Another v Kajungu Dennis (CACA No. 85 of 2011)
  • Bank of Africa Limited v Ssuuna Fred (HCCS No. 1036 of 2023)
  • Greenboat Entertainment Ltd v City Council of Kampala (Civil Suit No. 580 of 2003)
  • Ronald Kasibante v Shell Uganda Ltd (HCCS No. 542 of 2006)
  • Lwanga v Centenary Bank [1999] EA 175
  • Riches v Westminster Bank Ltd [1947] 1 All ER 469
  • Tate & Lyle Food and Distribution Ltd v Greater London Council [1981] 3 All ER 716
  • Mohanlal Kakubhai Radia v Warid Telecom Ltd (HCCS No. 234 of 2011)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
  • Uganda Development Bank v Muganga Constructions [1981] HCB 35

Cases citing this judgment (7)

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.

Que Zhangshu and Another v Ham Mizamil Ezama (Civil Suit No. 13 of 2020) [2025] UGHC 885 (12 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.