Wakilii

Roko Constructions (R) Limited v Enson Global Limited and Another (Civil Suit No. 675 of 2016)

High Court · [2020] UGCOMMC 145 · 2020 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, heard ex parte after defendants failed to appear
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff for RWF 76,000,000 plus general damages and interest

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

The High Court Commercial Division held that it had jurisdiction to try the matter because the contract was made in Kampala and the defendants' head offices were in Kampala, satisfying the requirements of Civil Procedure Act s.15(c). The court found the defendants indebted to the plaintiff for RWF 76,000,000 based on their acknowledgement letter and unrealized cheque, though the plaintiff claimed a higher amount. The court awarded the principal sum, general damages calculated at 15% per annum from the date of default, interest on the award at 8% per annum from judgment until payment, and costs.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff for RWF 76,000,000 plus general damages and interest

Facts

In 2015, the plaintiff, a foreign limited liability company, contracted with the defendants at its Kampala office to supply ready mixed concrete for a project in Kigali, Rwanda. The plaintiff supplied concrete on 6 January 2015 and issued an invoice for USD 309,719. The defendants made two partial payments totaling RWF 200,000,000, leaving a balance. The plaintiff made further supplies and issued another invoice for USD 78,204.50 on 24 February 2015. In September 2015, the defendants acknowledged an outstanding debt of RWF 76,000,000 by letter and issued a postdated cheque for that amount, which was dishonored due to banking regulations prohibiting payment of such large sums by cheque. Despite promises to pay by July 2016, the defendants failed to settle the debt. The matter proceeded ex parte as the defendants did not appear at the hearing despite being served.

Issues

  1. Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try this matter.
  2. Whether the Defendants are indebted to the Plaintiff to a tune of RWF 76,598,979.
  3. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the remedies prayed for.

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the Plaintiff against the Defendants.
  • Defendants to pay RWF 76,000,000 (Rwandan Francs Seventy-Six Million) as the principal sum.
  • General damages payable to the Plaintiff at a rate of 15% per annum on the principal award of RWF 76,000,000 from 24th February 2015 to date of judgment.
  • Interest on the award at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Territorial Jurisdiction — Contract Cases — Place Where Contract Was Made
Under Civil Procedure Act s.15(c) read with Explanation 3, a suit arising out of contract may be instituted in a court within whose local limits the cause of action wholly or in part arises, including the place where the contract was made, the place where it was to be performed, or the place where money was payable. Meeting any one of these three conditions is sufficient to establish jurisdiction.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Deemed Admissions — Failure to Deny Averments
Under Order 8 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Evidence Act s.57, every averment of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the opposite party, shall be deemed to be admitted. A fact deemed to be admitted by any rule of pleading need not be proved unless the court in its discretion requires further proof.
Contract Law — Implied Contracts — Formation by Conduct
A contract may be implied from the conduct of the parties where one party supplies goods or services and the other party makes payments, signifying mutual agreement, even in the absence of a written contract.
Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Acknowledgement of Debt — Evidential Value
A written acknowledgement of debt by a defendant, coupled with the issuance of a postdated cheque for the acknowledged amount, constitutes strong evidence of indebtedness, even where the cheque is subsequently dishonored for reasons unrelated to insufficiency of funds.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Belated Payment of Money — Assessment by Interest
In cases of belated payment of money, the normal measure of general damages is by way of interest which the money would attract during the period of breach, taking the rates of interest and inflation into account. Where money has been withheld or belatedly paid, damages are a factor of interest on returns that the money would have otherwise attracted had it been in the right hands.
Damages & Quantum — Interest — Just and Reasonable Rate — Factors to Consider
Where interest has not been agreed upon by the parties, under Civil Procedure Act s.26(1), the court should award interest that is just and reasonable. In determining a just and reasonable rate, courts take into account the ever rising inflation and drastic depreciation of the currency. The plaintiff is entitled to such rate of interest as would not neglect the prevailing economic value of money, but at the same time one which would insulate against economic vagaries and the inflation and depreciation of the currency in the event that the money awarded is not promptly paid when it falls due.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (8)

  • Owners of Motor Vessel Lillian 's' v Caltex Oil Kenya Limited [1989] KLR 1
  • Ozuu Brothers Enterprises v Ayikoru Milka (Civil Revision No. 02 of 2016)
  • Nilecom Ltd v Kodjo Enterprises (Civil Suit No. 0018 of 2014)
  • Sietco v Noble Builders (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 31 of 1995)
  • Shipping GL (U) Ltd v P.N Mashru Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 1099 of 2017)
  • Stroms v Hutchinson [1905] AC 515
  • Mohanlal Kakubhai Radia v Warid Telecom Ltd (Civil Suit No. 234 of 2011)
  • Kinyera v The Management Committee of Laroo Boarding Primary School (Civil Suit No. 099 of 2013)

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.

Roko Constructions (R) Limited v Enson Global Limited and Another (Civil Suit No. 675 of 2016) [2020] UGCommC 145 (2 September 2020)
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.