Wakilii

Shalom Catering Services Ltd v Mariye Estates Ltd (Civil Suit No. 131 of 2019)

High Court · [2022] UGCOMMC 19 · 2022 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 for unpaid catering services
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff with damages and costs awarded; defendant ordered to pay principal sum with interest from default and general damages with interest from judgment

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 held that a binding oral contract existed between the parties for catering services at agreed prices, established through email correspondence and subsequent performance. The defendant breached the contract by failing to pay for services rendered. The plaintiff proved its claim for UGX 45,662,400 for unpaid services but failed to establish entitlement to contractual interest or compensation for remote losses including loan interest and property sale losses. General damages of UGX 10,000,000 were awarded for inconvenience and distress, with interest at 6% per annum.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff with damages and costs awarded; defendant ordered to pay principal sum with interest from default and general damages with interest from judgment

Facts

The plaintiff supplied catering services to the defendant's staff under an oral contract established through email correspondence in December 2016 and January 2017, agreeing to revised prices of UGX 1,700 per person and UGX 2,400 for Mbawo location. The plaintiff continued supplying meals documented by signed delivery notes until August 2018 when the defendant instructed cessation of services. The defendant failed to pay for services rendered in May, July, and August 2018 despite written demands. The plaintiff claimed the defendant owed UGX 50,218,640 including 10% interest. The defendant admitted partial debt but claimed to have made payments totaling UGX 42,532,800, leaving only UGX 3,129,600 outstanding. The plaintiff's directors testified they obtained a loan and one director sold personal property at a loss due to cash flow constraints caused by non-payment. The matter proceeded ex parte after the defendant's repeated non-appearance.

Issues

  1. Whether the Defendant is in breach of contract
  2. Whether the Defendant is liable for the amounts claimed by the Plaintiff under the contract
  3. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to compensation for the financial loss suffered as a result of the Defendant's conduct
  4. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the remedies sought

Orders

  • The Defendant is in breach of contract.
  • The Defendant is ordered to pay UGX 45,662,400 being money for unpaid catering services offered by the Plaintiff for the months of May, July, and August 2018.
  • The Defendant is ordered to pay UGX 10,000,000 as general damages to the Plaintiff.
  • Costs are awarded to the Plaintiff.
  • Interest on the principal sum is granted at 6% per annum from date of default until payment in full.
  • Interest on general damages is awarded at 6% per annum from date of judgment until payment in full.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Formation — Oral Contracts — Validity of Agreement Pending Formal Documentation
Where parties agree that they shall subsequently reduce their agreement into a formal document, their antecedent negotiations may nevertheless amount to a valid and binding contract notwithstanding that no such formal document has been drawn up, provided the negotiations clearly indicate definite acceptance of all terms of an offer and the acceptance is unqualified.
Contract Law — Formation — Subsequent Conduct as Evidence of Binding Contract
Subsequent events and conduct of parties are relevant in demonstrating whether or not there was a binding contract between them.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Parties Bound by Pleadings — Limitation on Claims
A litigant's claim is limited to what was particularly pleaded in the plaint or written statement of defense. A party is expected and bound to prove the case as alleged and as covered in the issues framed, and will not be allowed to succeed on a case not so set up except by amendment of pleadings.
Contract Law — Remedies — Compensation for Breach — Remoteness of Damage
Compensation for breach of contract should not be given for any remote and indirect loss or damage sustained by reason of the breach. Damages should be such as may fairly and reasonably be considered either arising naturally according to the usual course of things from the breach itself, or such as may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of both parties at the time they made the contract as the probable result of the breach.
Contract Law — Remedies — Compensation — Loss Not Reasonably Foreseeable
A party in breach cannot be held liable for losses that could not be anticipated while exercising sound judgment as a natural consequence arising from the breach, such as the other party obtaining a loan or selling personal property to meet obligations, where no communication of financial constraints was made before such actions were taken.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Discretionary Award — Restitutio in Integrum
General damages are awarded at the court's discretion guided by the principle of restitutio in integrum, which requires that the law endeavor, insofar as money can do it, to place the injured party in the same situation as he or she would have been if the contract had been performed.
Damages & Quantum — Interest — Basis for Award — Defendant's Use of Plaintiff's Money
The basis of an award of interest is that the defendant has kept the plaintiff out of his money and the defendant has had the use of it himself, so he ought to compensate the plaintiff accordingly.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (8)

  • Katalemwa Traders Ltd v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1987)
  • Ewadra Emmanuel v Spencon Services Limited (Civil Suit No. 22 of 2015)
  • Paineto Semalulu v Nakitto Eva Kasule (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2008)
  • Interfreight Forwarders (U) Ltd v East African Development Bank (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 33 of 1993)
  • Hadley & Another -v- Baxendale & Others [1854] EWHC J70
  • Obongo & Another -v- Municipal Council of Kisumu [1971] EA 91
  • Harbutt's Plasticine Ltd -v- Wayne Tank and Pump Co. Ltd [1970] 1 ALLER 225
  • Superior Construction & Engineering Limited v Notay Engineering Industries (1918) Ltd (Civil Suit No. 702 of 1989)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Shalom Catering Services Ltd v Mariye Estates Ltd (Civil Suit No. 131 of 2019) [2022] UGCommC 19 (12 April 2022)
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.