Wakilii

Samara Tradings Ltd v Hon Minister Of Justice And Constitutional Affairs Of Republic Of Southern Sudan (Attorney General Of Republic Of South Sudan) [2026] UGCOMMC 350

High Court · 2026 Suit Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance commercial suit for breach of contract, heard on the plaintiff's evidence alone under Order 9 rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules after the defendant failed to file a written statement of defence
Decision
Suit dismissed for want of a cause of action against the defendant; no costs awarded

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

The court dismissed a Ugandan supplier's USD 4,400,000 claim against the Government of South Sudan for maize grain delivered under subcontracts. Although the defendant had contracted with two South Sudanese companies which in turn subcontracted the plaintiff, no contractual relationship existed between the plaintiff and the defendant. The doctrine of privity of contract barred the claim, and the plaintiff proved no exception under section 65 of the Contracts Act (the head contracts neither named the plaintiff nor conferred an enforceable benefit on it) or at common law. Delivery notes, invoices and government confirmations of receipt all identified the intermediary companies as the payees. The plaintiff therefore had no cause of action.

Outcome

Suit dismissed for want of a cause of action against the defendant; no costs awarded

Facts

In March and May 2009 the defendant Government of South Sudan contracted with Palm Enterprises Co. Ltd and Das Investment Co. Ltd for the supply of 30,000 and 50,000 bags of maize grain respectively for delivery to Central Equatoria State, Juba. On 18 May 2009 the plaintiff, a Ugandan company, executed subcontracts with Palm Enterprises Co. Ltd (USD 1,650,000) and with Muri Investment Co. Ltd, which had acquired Das Investment Co. Ltd (USD 2,750,000), to supply those quantities. The plaintiff made the supplies. Delivery notes and invoices were addressed to the two intermediary companies, which were also shown as importers on cargo manifests. South Sudanese officials confirmed receipt of the grain and directed payment of SDG 3,300,000 and SDG 5,500,000 to Palm Enterprises and Muri Investment respectively. Investigation reports by the Strategic Grain Reserves Committee, and a 2010 intergovernmental agreement between Uganda and South Sudan to compensate 24 Ugandan suppliers, did not list the plaintiff. The plaintiff was never paid and sued the defendant for USD 4,400,000, general damages, interest and costs. The defendant, though duly served twice, filed no defence and the suit proceeded under Order 9 rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Issues

  1. Whether there was a breach of contract by the defendant.
  2. Whether the plaintiff, as a subcontractor and non-party to the head contracts, had a cause of action against the defendant principal.
  3. What remedies, if any, were available to the parties.

Orders

  • The suit is dismissed.
  • No costs are awarded, the defendant having not filed a written statement of defence.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Privity of Contract — Subcontractor's Claim Against Principal Employer
A contract creates rights and obligations only between the parties to it; a subcontractor who has no contractual nexus with the principal purchaser cannot sue that principal on the head contract merely because the principal received and benefited from the goods supplied.
Contract Law — Statutory Exception to Privity — Contracts Act s.65 Requirements
For a third party to enforce a term of a contract under section 65 of the Contracts Act, the contract must expressly permit such enforcement or confer a benefit on the third party, the contracting parties must have intended the term to be enforceable by the third party, and the third party must be expressly identified in the contract by name, class or description.
Contract Law — Formation and Validity — Consensus, Capacity, Consideration and Certainty
In determining the validity and enforceability of a contract the court must be satisfied that the parties had capacity and an intention to contract, reached consensus ad idem, furnished valuable consideration, pursued a lawful object and expressed sufficiently certain terms; the court does not make contracts for the parties but construes the surrounding circumstances to give effect to their intention.
Evidence — Burden and Standard of Proof — Civil Claims Founded on Asserted Facts
A party who asks the court to give judgment on a legal right or liability dependent on asserted facts bears the burden of proving those facts on a balance of probabilities; documentary exhibits showing delivery to, invoicing of and payment directions in favour of intermediary companies will not discharge that burden against a defendant alleged to be directly liable.
Civil Procedure — Cause of Action — Effect of Defendant's Failure to File a Defence
A defendant's failure to file a written statement of defence does not relieve the plaintiff of proving a cause of action; where the evidence discloses no legal relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, the suit will be dismissed notwithstanding that the claim is unopposed, and costs may be withheld where no defence was filed.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (11)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Samara Tradings Ltd v Hon Minister Of Justice And Constitutional Affairs Of Republic Of Southern Sudan (Attorney General Of Republic Of South Sudan) [2026] UGCommC 350 (20 July 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.