Wakilii

Quingyou v Core Mineral Geologists Ltd and Others (Civil Suit No. 915 of 2018)

High Court · [2019] UGHC 109 · 2019 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of money had and received; default judgment entered for liquidated sum, formal proof hearing for unliquidated damages and interest
Decision
Plaintiff awarded UGX 100,000,000 general damages with interest and costs; principal sum of USD 245,000 previously awarded under default judgment confirmed; claims for compound interest and special damages dismissed

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (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 1 time 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

Held that the plaintiff was not entitled to compound interest on the principal sum as the nature of the transaction and absence of agreement on compound interest did not warrant such award. Special damages claim for travel expenses failed due to insufficient proof. General damages of UGX 100,000,000 awarded with interest at court rate for breach of obligation to deliver gold after receiving advance payment. Costs awarded to the plaintiff.

Outcome

Plaintiff awarded UGX 100,000,000 general damages with interest and costs; principal sum of USD 245,000 previously awarded under default judgment confirmed; claims for compound interest and special damages dismissed

Facts

On 15 February 2017, the plaintiff was appointed by the first defendant company as agent to sell 10,000 kilograms of gold. The plaintiff travelled to China with the second defendant and procured a purchaser, Ben Gang (Yantai) Financial Leasing Company Limited, entering an agreement for sale of 3,000 kilograms. When the defendants failed to deliver an initial tranche of 100 kilograms, the plaintiff advanced USD 245,000 to enable them to procure the gold. The second defendant, a director of the first defendant, received the money but the defendants failed to provide the gold, frustrating performance of the contract with the purchaser. The defendants were served by substituted service via newspaper publication and failed to file a defence. Default judgment was entered on 12 February 2019 for the liquidated sum of USD 250,000. The matter proceeded to formal proof for determination of interest, special damages, general damages, and costs.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to compound interest on the USD 245,000 already awarded.
  2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to special damages for travel expenses incurred.
  3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to general damages.
  4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest on special damages.
  5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the costs of the suit.

Orders

  • Default judgment on the principal sum of USD 245,000 maintained.
  • Claim for compound interest on USD 245,000 refused.
  • Claim for special damages of USD 5,588 refused.
  • General damages of UGX 100,000,000 awarded to the plaintiff.
  • Interest on general damages at court rate from date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Default Judgment — Presumption of Constructive Admission
Failure to file a defence raises a presumption or constructive admission of the claims made in the plaint and the plaintiff's story must be accepted as the truth.
Damages & Quantum — Interest — Compound Interest — Basis for Award
Compound interest is not founded simply on indebtedness or duration of non-payment but is based on the law applicable to the transaction, the nature of the business, construction of the agreement, trade custom, intentions of parties, or consequences of the commercial transaction concluded between them. Where money was voluntarily advanced and compound interest on default was not agreed, the nature of the transaction does not entitle the claimant to compound interest.
Damages & Quantum — Special Damages — Proof Requirements — Exceptions to Strict Proof
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. While some cases recognize exceptions where receipts are lost, evidence of passport entries showing international travel does not constitute sufficient proof of claimed travel expenses where evidence of ticket purchase and accommodation costs is easily attainable in the modern era.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Compensatory Principle — Breach of Commercial Obligation
General damages are compensatory and measured by the plaintiff's loss, to put the injured party in the same position they would have been in had they not sustained the wrong. Where money advanced for a specific commercial purpose is not applied to that purpose and the plaintiff is unable to perform obligations to a third party due to the defendant's failure to perform, the plaintiff is entitled to general damages for the inconvenience and loss occasioned.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Costs Follow the Event
Costs ordinarily follow the event unless the court for good reason orders otherwise. A successful party is entitled to costs and there must be justification before such a party is deprived of costs.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (15)

  • Attorney General v Virchand Mithalal & Sons Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2007)
  • Sarah Kayaga Farm Limited v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 351 of 1991)
  • Waller Steiner v Moir (No 2) [1975] 1 All ER 449
  • Tumwesigire v Trans Sahara International General Trading LLC (High Court Civil Suit No. 95 of 2005)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Deo Kigozi [2002] EA 293
  • Wekesa John Patrick v The Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 130 of 2008)
  • Superior Construction and Engineering Ltd v Natany Engineering Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 24 of 1994)
  • Mugobera v Gizamba (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 8 of 2013)
  • James Mbabazi & Anor v NATCO Stores Ltd (Court of Appeal Reference No. 15 of 2004)
  • Francis Babuzabirua v Faud Ali t/a Muhamed's Garage (High Court Civil Suit No. 623 of 1992)
  • Kyambadde v Mpigi District Administration [1983] HCB 44
  • Attorney General v Blake [1998] 1 All ER 376
  • Livingstone v Rawyards Coal Co (1880) 5 App Cas 25
  • Hall Brothers SS Company Ltd v Young (1939) 1 KB 744
  • Grollin East Africa Fund LLC v Investec Uganda Ltd & 2 Ors (Civil Suit No. 374 of 2011)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

Quingyou v Core Mineral Geologists Ltd and Others (Civil Suit No. 915 of 2018) [2019] UGHC 109 (7 November 2019)
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.