Wakilii

Regal Paints Uganda Limited v Grace Innol Enterprises Limited and Another (Civil Suit No. 397 of 2019)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 11 · 2026 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 under credit supply agreement and personal guarantee
Decision
Defendants held jointly and severally liable for outstanding debt with interest 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

Held that a guarantor assumes primary liability for the debt if the principal debtor defaults and may be pursued jointly and severally with the principal debtor without prior demand or notice. The evidential burden of proving payment rests on the defendant once the creditor establishes a prima facie case of debt. The court found the defendants jointly and severally liable for UGX 304,315,387 being the outstanding balance on credit supplies, with interest at 20% per annum from the date of filing suit.

Outcome

Defendants held jointly and severally liable for outstanding debt with interest and costs

Facts

The plaintiff paint manufacturing company supplied paint on credit to the 1st defendant company between October 2017 and August 2018 under a credit supply agreement. The 2nd defendant executed a personal guarantee for the 1st defendant's obligations. The parties agreed the outstanding balance as at 31st December 2017 was UGX 334,881,727. The 1st defendant continued receiving supplies worth UGX 395,354,869 until 31st January 2019, paid UGX 222,020,000, and received credit notes worth UGX 203,901,209. The plaintiff claimed UGX 363,206,311.75 remained outstanding. The defendants contended they had fully discharged the debt through payments and returns of unsold goods.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff company has a cause of action against the 2nd defendant in his personal capacity.
  2. Whether the 1st defendant is indebted to the plaintiff company, and if so, to what extent.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the plaintiff against the defendants jointly and severally.
  • The sum of UGX 304,315,387 awarded as the outstanding balance.
  • Interest on the award at the rate of 20% per annum from 13th May 2019 until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Guarantees — Primary Liability of Guarantor on Default
A guarantor assumes primary liability for the debt if the principal debtor defaults and the creditor may pursue both the guarantor and the principal debtor jointly or separately without being required to give notice of default to the guarantor or to first pursue the principal debtor.
Guarantees — Joint and Several Liability
Where a guarantee provides that the guarantor's liability shall be equal to that of the principal debtor, both parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the debt and can be pursued separately or together for any outstanding balance.
Proof of Debt — Burden of Proof
Once a creditor introduces evidence of a debt establishing a prima facie case, the evidential burden shifts to the debtor to produce evidence showing payment, rather than the burden remaining on the creditor to prove non-payment.
Special Damages — Standard of Proof
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved, but strict proof does not necessarily always require documentary evidence where other credible evidence is available.
Interest — Commercial Rate as Compensation
An award of interest at commercial rate recognises loss of return opportunity and compensates for the unfair benefit enjoyed by a debtor who retains and uses money owed during dispute resolution, restoring the creditor to the position it would have enjoyed if the breach had not occurred.
Damages — General Damages and Interest
Where a defendant has not proved any damage apart from late payment of money due under contract, an award of interest at commercial rate serves the same compensatory purpose as general damages and an additional award of general damages would constitute overcompensation.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (30)

  • Attorney General v Major General Tinyefuza (Constitutional Petition No. 1 of 1997)
  • Cooke v. Gull, LR 8E. P 116
  • Read v. Brown 22 QBD 31
  • Auto Garage and others v. Motokov (No.3) [1971] E.A 514
  • Kebirungi v. Road Trainers Ltd and two others [2008] HCB 72
  • Stanbic Bank Limited v Celular Galore Limited and two others (Civil Suit No. 50 of 2010)
  • Barclays Bank Ltd v Jing Hong and Guo Dong (Civil Suit No. 35 of 2009)
  • Moschi v. Lep Air Services Ltd [1973] AC 331; [1972] 2 WLR 1175; [1972] 2 All ER 393
  • Mian Aqueel and another v Exim Bank (U) Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 497 of 2017)
  • Protea Chemicals East Africa Limited v KAC Chemicals and Paints (U) Limited (Civil Suit No. 470 of 2016)
  • Borham-Carter v. Hyde Park Hotel [1948] 64 TLR
  • Masaka Municipal Council v. Semogerere [1998-2000] HCB 23
  • Musoke David v. Departed Asians Property Custodian Board [1990-1994] E.A. 219
  • Kyambadde v. Mpigi District Administration, [1983] HCB 44
  • Haji Asuman Mutekanga v Equator Growers (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1995)
  • Gapco (U) Ltd v AS Transporters (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2004)
  • Carmichael v. Caledonian Railway Co. (1870) 8 M (HL) 119
  • Riches v. Westminster Bank Ltd [1947] 1 All ER 469
  • Dodika Limited & Others v. United Luck Group Holdings Limited [2020] EWHC 2101 (Comm)
  • Storms v. Hutchinson [1905] AC 515
  • Kabona Brothers Agencies v. Uganda Metal Products & Enamelling Co Ltd [1981-1982] HCB 74
  • Kiwanuka Godfrey T/a Tasumi Auto Spares and Class mart v Arua District Local Government (Civil Suit No. 186 of 2006)
  • Hungerfords v. Walker (1989) 171 CLR 125
  • 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)
  • Harriet Arinaitwe v Africana Clays Ltd (Civil Suit No. 376 of 2013)
  • Spring Freight Logistics Limited v Amoo Holding International Limited and others (Civil Suit No. 556 of 2019)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Regal Paints Uganda Limited v Grace Innol Enterprises Limited and Another (Civil Suit No. 397 of 2019) [2026] UGCommC 11 (19 January 2026)
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.