Wakilii

Sanjay Datta v Okello (HCT-00-CC-CS 81 of 2013)

High Court · [2013] UGCOMMC 44 · 2013 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 money
Decision
Plaintiff awarded special damages of UGX 87,974,000, general damages of UGX 20,000,000, and interest at 6% per annum on both heads

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 awarded the plaintiff UGX 87,974,000 in special damages (being the balance of money paid under a breached property sale agreement), UGX 20 million in general damages for deprivation of use of funds, and interest at 6% per annum on both heads. Interest on special damages runs from the date of filing suit, not from the date of the agreement, as there was no contractual or statutory provision for pre-suit interest.

Outcome

Plaintiff awarded special damages of UGX 87,974,000, general damages of UGX 20,000,000, and interest at 6% per annum on both heads

Facts

The plaintiff and defendant entered into a written agreement on 11 March 2011 for the sale of property comprised in LRV 446 Folio 12 Plot 97 Sixth Street Kampala for UGX 500,000,000. The property was Departed Asian Property, and the defendant was the sitting tenant. Under their agreement, the plaintiff paid UGX 130,000,000 to the Departed Asian Property Custodian Board's bank account and UGX 65,974,000 to the defendant's account. The defendant was to provide a special certificate within three months, failing which he would refund UGX 195,974,000. The Custodian Board received the payment on 21 March 2011 but did not honour the sitting tenant policy and instead sold the property to a third party. The defendant failed to produce the certificate and did not fully refund the money. By October 2013, the defendant had paid back UGX 108 million, leaving a balance of UGX 87,974,000.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to recovery of money paid under a breached contract for the sale of property
  2. What quantum of general damages was appropriate for the plaintiff's deprivation of use of money for nearly three years
  3. What rate of interest should be awarded on special and general damages
  4. From what date should interest on special damages run

Orders

  • Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of UGX 87,974,000.
  • General damages of UGX 20,000,000 awarded to the plaintiff.
  • Interest on special damages at 6% per annum awarded from 22nd September 2011 (date suit was instituted) until payment in full.
  • Interest on general damages at 6% per annum awarded from date of judgment until payment in full.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Breach of Contract — General Damages — Compensatory Principle
General damages for breach of contract are compensatory and their primary function is to place the plaintiff in as good a position, to the extent that money can do, as if the breach had not occurred, measured by the material loss suffered.
Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Remoteness of Damage — Proximate Loss
A defendant's liability for breach of contract is limited to losses that are proximate, meaning losses that are the likely consequence of the breach or that could have been contemplated by the parties at the time they entered into the contract.
Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Loss of Use of Money — Assessment of Damages
Where a plaintiff is deprived of the use of money for an extended period due to breach of contract and the defendant knew or should have contemplated that the money was for business purposes, the loss of non-use of the money is proximate and compensable through general damages.
Damages & Quantum — Interest — Discretionary Nature and Basis of Award
An award of interest is discretionary and the basis of such an award is that the defendant has kept the plaintiff out of his money and the defendant has had the use of it, so he ought to compensate the plaintiff accordingly.
Damages & Quantum — Interest — Rate — Factors for Consideration
In determining an appropriate rate of interest, the court should consider what a person in the defendant's economic situation can afford, the circumstances of the case including any third-party involvement in frustrating the transaction, and whether general damages have already been awarded.
Damages & Quantum — Interest — Commencement Date — Pre-Institution Interest
Interest on special damages is payable from the date of filing suit and interest on general damages from the date of judgment. Interest for a period pre-institution of suit can only be awarded if provided for in the agreement between the parties, in conformity to a trade usage, or under statutory provision.

Cases cited (10)

  • Hall Brothers SS Co Ltd v Young [1939] 1 KB 748
  • Storms v Hutchinson [1905] AC 515
  • The Argentino (1889) 14 App Cas 519 (HL)
  • Bank of Uganda v Masaba & Others [1999] 1 EA 2
  • Hadley v Baxendale [1843-60] All ER 46
  • Bhadeha Habib Ltd v Commissioner General, URA [1997-2001] UCL 202
  • Harbutts Plasticine Ltd v Wayne Tank & Pump Co Ltd [1970] 1 Ch B 447
  • Nyambura Kigaragari v Agrippina Mary Aya [1982-88] 1 KAR 768
  • Kenya Ports Authority V Kobil (Kenya) Ltd Nairobi HCCS 83/98
  • National Bank of Kenya Ltd V Devji Bhiriji Shanghani EA 13/94

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sanjay Datta v Okello (HCT-00-CC-CS 81 of 2013) [2013] UGCommC 44 (13 March 2013)
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.