Wakilii

Sapphire Ltd v Vicentalex I.B.P.Center Boarding School & Anor (HCT-00-CC-CS 330 of 2006)

High Court · [2007] UGCOMMC 47 · 2007 Judgment for Plaintiff (No Costs) AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of debt arising from supply of goods
Decision
Judgment for plaintiff for Shs.2,525,000 in total (Shs.1,525,000 admitted + Shs.1,000,000 proved), with interest at 25% per annum from judgment date, but 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

In a suit for recovery of debt for school uniforms supplied, the court found that the plaintiff supplied goods worth Shs.10,925,000 and received payments totaling Shs.8,400,000, leaving a balance of Shs.2,525,000 due. Of this, Shs.1,525,000 had been admitted and decreed, leaving Shs.1,000,000 to be recovered. The court declined to award costs to the plaintiff despite success, finding that the plaintiff had claimed Shs.14,000,000 knowing the true contract value was Shs.10,925,000, constituting dishonest conduct.

Outcome

Judgment for plaintiff for Shs.2,525,000 in total (Shs.1,525,000 admitted + Shs.1,000,000 proved), with interest at 25% per annum from judgment date, but no costs awarded

Facts

The plaintiff sued to recover Shs.14,000,000 for school uniforms supplied to the defendants. At the scheduling conference, the defendants admitted owing Shs.1,525,000, and judgment was entered for that sum. The defendants had placed an order worth Shs.14,000,000 but the plaintiff actually supplied uniforms worth Shs.10,925,000. The defendants participated in the scheduling conference but failed to appear at the hearing, which proceeded ex parte. The plaintiff's evidence showed they supplied 353 girls' dresses (light green) worth Shs.3,530,000, 350 girls' dresses (light grey) worth Shs.3,500,000, 429 boys' shirts (light green) worth Shs.2,145,000, and 350 boys' shorts (dark green) worth Shs.1,750,000, totaling Shs.10,925,000. The defendants' Written Statement of Defence claimed total payments of Shs.9,400,000. The court found that the plaintiff received Shs.5,200,000 directly from the defendants and Shs.3,200,000 through its lawyers, M/S Kawanga & Kasule Advocates, who had deducted Shs.1,200,000 as their costs from Shs.3,200,000 recovered. The court rejected one payment voucher dated 24/4/2006 for Shs.1,000,000 as lacking a signature evidencing receipt.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff had proved the value of goods supplied to the defendants.
  2. Whether the plaintiff had proved the total amount of payments received from the defendants.
  3. What balance, if any, remained due and owing from the defendants to the plaintiff.

Orders

  • Judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff for Shs.1,525,000 (admitted sum).
  • Judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff for an additional Shs.1,000,000 (balance proved).
  • Interest awarded at 25% per annum from date of judgment until payment in full.
  • If the admitted sum of Shs.1,525,000 had not been paid by 13/11/2006, the plaintiff may recover the entire balance of Shs.2,525,000 at once.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Sale of Goods — Recovery of Price — Burden of Proof
In a suit for recovery of the price of goods supplied, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving both the value of goods delivered and the amount of payments received. Where the plaintiff admits receiving payments through its agent, such payments are attributed to the plaintiff under the principle that he who does something through another does it himself.
Evidence — Documentary Evidence — Payment Vouchers — Proof of Payment
A payment voucher lacking the signature of the person alleged to have received the payment does not, on a balance of probabilities, prove that payment was made. The burden is on the party asserting payment to produce sufficient evidence, including properly executed receipts.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Discretion — Clean Hands Doctrine
Although costs ordinarily follow the event, the court retains discretion to decline to award costs to a successful party whose conduct has been unconscionable. Where a plaintiff knowingly claims an inflated sum far exceeding what was actually supplied or due, the court may order each party to bear its own costs on equitable grounds, as equity will not assist a litigant who does not come with clean hands.
Commercial Law — Agency — Payments Through Agents — Attribution to Principal
Money recovered by a lawyer or agent on behalf of a client is attributed to the client, even where the agent deducts costs from the recovered sum before remitting the balance. The full amount recovered by the agent constitutes payment to the principal for purposes of determining outstanding debt.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sapphire Ltd v Vicentalex I.B.P.Center Boarding School & Anor (HCT-00-CC-CS 330 of 2006) [2007] UGCommC 47 (16 May 2007)
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.