Recolte Ltd v Swift Engineering (U) Ltd (Civil Suit 407 of 2022)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The court held that a valid and enforceable contract existed between the parties whereby the plaintiff provided an advance payment guarantee of UGX 586,783,084 to UNRA on behalf of the defendant. The defendant breached the contract by failing to reimburse the plaintiff after UNRA called on the guarantee. The plaintiff was awarded the principal sum of UGX 586,783,084 plus general damages of UGX 539,840,437 calculated at 23% per annum from August 2021. Claims for consequential loss and loss of goodwill were dismissed for lack of evidence.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff with damages and costs

Facts

In 2020, the defendant, a road construction company, was awarded a contract by UNRA requiring an advance payment guarantee of UGX 586,783,084. The plaintiff, a Kenyan trade finance company, provided this guarantee through Credit Bank Kenya pursuant to an agreement dated 16 September 2020 with the defendant. The plaintiff wired the guarantee funds to the defendant's account in Uganda, and DFCU issued an on-demand advance payment security to UNRA. In August 2021, UNRA called on the guarantee and the amount was debited from the plaintiff's account. Despite assurances from the defendant regarding contract performance and payment certifications submitted to UNRA, the defendant failed to reimburse the plaintiff. The defendant did not appear at the hearing and the matter proceeded ex parte.

Issues

1. Whether there was a contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and if so, whether the defendant is liable for breach of contract.
2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought.

Orders

• A declaration that the defendant breached the contract.
• An award to the plaintiff of UGX 586,783,084 being the outstanding advance payment guarantee.
• General damages of UGX 539,840,437.
• Costs of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (9)

• Contracts Act Cap 284 s.9
• Contracts Act Cap 284 s.32
• Contracts Act Cap 284 s.61(1)
• Evidence Act Cap 8 s.101
• Evidence Act Cap 8 s.103
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 9 rule 20(1)(a)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 7 rule 14
• Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.27(1)
• Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.27(2)

Cases cited (14)

• Imperial Bank (U) Ltd v Kaika Investo Ltd & 2 Ors (Civil Suit No. 750 of 2013)
• Ronald Kasibante v Shell Uganda Ltd (Civil Suit No. 542 of 2006)
• Photo Productions Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd (1980) AC 827
• Jovelyn Barugahare v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 28 of 1993)
• Robinson v. Harman (1848) 1 Exch. 850
• East Ham BC v. Bernard Sunley & Sons Ltd [1965]
• James Fredrick Nsubuga v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 13 of 1993)
• Erukana Kuwe v Isaac Patrick Matovu and another (Civil Suit No. 177 of 2003)
• Hadley v. Baxendale (1894) 9 Exch 341
• Charles Acire v M Engola (Civil Suit No. 143 of 1993)
• Kibimba Rice Ltd v Umar Salim (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1992)
• Nilecom Limited v Kodjo Enterprises (Civil Suit No. 18 of 2014)
• Sowah v. Bank for Housing & Construction [1982-83] 2 GLR, 1324
• Uganda Development Bank v Muganga Construction Co. Ltd (1981)

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.

• Esther Ssempebwa v Andrew Babigumira and Commissioner Land Registration (Miscellaneous Application No. 505 of 2025)

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