Sietco v Noble Builders (U) Limited (Civil Appeal 31 of 1995)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The Supreme Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against a High Court award of the contract balance in a building sub-contract dispute. Correcting the plaintiff's name from "Co." to "(U)" was a correctable misnomer of an identifiable party, not a substitution of a new party, and the irregular amendments occasioned no failure of justice as the appellant answered them without objection. The trial Judge had properly exercised his discretion on adjournments and on the pleadings. A substantially completed building contract entitles the builder to the price despite minor defects. The respondent's cross-appeal succeeded: where a plaintiff is deprived of a liquidated sum, interest under s.26(2) of the Civil Procedure Act runs from the date of filing suit, not merely from judgment.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed and interest varied to run from the date of filing suit

Facts

SIETCO, a Chinese corporation engaged in construction, had contracted with the United Nations Development Programme to build an office block and a residential estate in Kampala, and sub-contracted that work to Noble Builders (U) Ltd. The respondent claimed the balance of the agreed sub-contract price. The appellant counter-claimed for work allegedly not done or badly done in breach of contract, including corrective measures and penalty monies for late completion. During execution there were problems with the quality of finishes, and the parties agreed that SIETCO take over supervision of the respondent's workers, with SIETCO stating it assumed full responsibility for quality. By the time the respondent left the site on 1 March 1989 the office block was complete and occupied and the housing units were substantially complete and partially occupied. The High Court found the respondent had substantially performed, entered judgment for it of US$1,254,567.97 with costs and interest from judgment, and dismissed the counter-claim.

Issues

1. Whether the proceedings were a nullity because the amended plaint was made without leave and the plaintiff was a non-existent person.
2. Whether changing the plaintiff's name from "Noble Builders Co. Ltd" to "Noble Builders (U) Ltd" was a correctable misnomer or an impermissible substitution of a new party.
3. Whether the trial Judge exercised his discretion judicially in refusing the appellant's applications for adjournment.
4. Whether the trial Judge erred in striking out part of the counter-claim and in expunging and excluding evidence as a departure from the pleadings.
5. Whether the respondent had substantially performed the building contract so as to be entitled to the contract price.
6. Whether, on the cross-appeal, interest should run from the date of filing suit rather than from the date of judgment.

Orders

• Appeal dismissed with costs.
• Cross-appeal allowed.
• Order for interest at 12% from the date of judgment set aside and substituted with an order for interest at 12% from the date of filing suit until payment in full.
• Costs of the cross-appeal awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (9)

• Civil Procedure Act s.26(2)
• Civil Procedure Act s.101
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 1 rule 10
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 rule 2
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 rule 18
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 rule 19
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 13 rule 1(5)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 13 rule 5(1)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 15 rule 1(1)

Cases cited (20)

• Adonia Nakudi v Chrisant K. Mukasa (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1986)
• Makula International Ltd v H. E. Cardinal Nsubuga & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)
• Reliable African Insurance Agencies vs. National Insurance Corporation 1979 HCB 58
• Fort Hall Bakery Supply Co. vs. Fredrick Mungai Wangoe 1959 EA 474
• Tetlaw vs. Orela Limited [1920] 2 Ch. 24
• Davies vs. Elsby Brothers (1961) WLR 170
• Riches vs. Westminster Bank Limited (1943) 2 ALL ER 725
• Whittam vs. W. J. Daniel and Co. Ltd. (1962) 1 QB 271
• Mbogo vs. Shah 1968 EA 94
• Muhindra Vs Muhindra (1953) 20 EACA 56
• Habib Javer Manji and Another v. Vir Singh 1962 EA 557
• Byrd v. Naun (1877) 7 CHD 287
• Harji Karsam vs. Monjee Ranjhavjee (1943) EACA 10
• Walji Jather Kanji and Another vs. Elias Freed 1959 EA 1071
• H. Dakin & Co. Ltd. vs. Lee [1916] I KB 566
• Hoening vs. Isaacs [1952] 2 ALL ER 176
• Harbutt's "Plasticine" Ltd. vs. Wayne Tank and Pump Co. Ltd. (1970) IQB 447
• Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. West End Distributors Ltd. (No. 2) 1970 EA 469
• Prem Lata vs. Mbiyu, [1965] EA 592
• J.K. Patel v Spear Motors Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1991)

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.

• Attorney General of Uganda v Kwesiga Precious (Civil Appeal No.277 of 2018)

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