Wakilii

Sino East Africa Trade Development Company Limited & Another v Dida Investment Consult Limited (Civil Suit 320 of 2021)

High Court · [2023] UGCOMMC 273 · 2023 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; judgment in default entered after defendant failed to file defence
Decision
Judgment entered for Plaintiffs with recovery of USD 60,000, general damages of UGX 10,000,000, interest, and costs

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

Court held that valid contracts were formed through two Memoranda of Understanding for consultancy services. Where the defendant failed to secure contracts for the plaintiffs' identified contractors and did not refund USD 60,000 as stipulated in the MOUs despite issuing dishonoured cheques, this constituted breach of contract. Plaintiff entitled to recovery of USD 60,000 plus interest at 18% per annum from filing of suit, general damages of UGX 10,000,000, and costs.

Outcome

Judgment entered for Plaintiffs with recovery of USD 60,000, general damages of UGX 10,000,000, interest, and costs

Facts

The Plaintiffs entered two Memoranda of Understanding with the Defendant for consultancy services in bidding processes. The first MOU (13 May 2019) and Contract of Indemnity provided for USD 40,000 advance for consultancy on the Masaka-Mbarara 220kv Electricity Transmission line bid. The second MOU (9 March 2020) and Addendum (22 May 2020) provided for USD 20,000 advance for consultancy on water and sanitation infrastructure projects. Both MOUs stipulated that if the identified contractors were not successful, the Defendant would refund the advances. The Defendant issued postdated cheques as security. None of the identified contractors secured the contracts. The Defendant did not refund the USD 60,000 and the cheques bounced due to insufficient funds. The Defendant failed to file a defence and judgment in default was entered.

Issues

  1. Whether there was a breach of contract by the Defendant?
  2. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to recover the claimed sum of USD 60,000?
  3. What remedies are available?

Orders

  • The Defendant to pay the Plaintiffs the contractual amount of USD 60,000.
  • Interest is awarded on the above amount at 18% per annum from the date of filing this suit till payment in full.
  • The Defendant is to pay the Plaintiffs UGX 10,000,000 as general damages.
  • Interest at the court rate on the general damages from the date of judgment till payment.
  • Costs of the suit to the Plaintiffs.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Formation of Contract — Essential Elements
A valid contract requires agreement made with free consent of parties with capacity to contract, for lawful consideration and lawful object, with intention to be legally bound.
Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Definition and Elements
A breach of contract occurs when a party neglects, refuses or fails to perform any part of its bargain or any term of the contract, written or oral, without a legitimate legal excuse.
Contract Law — Remedies — Compensation for Breach
A plaintiff who suffers damage due to a wrongful act of the defendant must be put in the position he would have been in had he not suffered the wrong.
Civil Procedure — Special Damages — Burden of Proof
Special damages must not only be strictly pleaded but also proved with documentary evidence. Mere assertion of a figure without supporting documentation is insufficient.
Contract Law — Interest — Discretion of Court
Award of interest on contract debts is at the discretion of the court and must be exercised judiciously considering all circumstances including the duration the money has been withheld and the commercial nature of the transaction.
Contract Law — Damages — Assessment of General Damages
In assessment of general damages in contract, courts are guided by the value of the subject matter, the economic inconvenience that a party has been put through, and the nature and extent of the breach. Damages are designed to compensate for established loss, not to enrich an aggrieved party.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (7)

  • Yoswa Kityo v Eriya Kaddu [1982] HCB 58
  • versus Acullu Hellen HCCA No. 38 of 2016
  • United Building Services Ltd v Yafesi Muzira T/A Quickest Builders and Co [2006] UGCommC 15
  • Akware Caroline Osilo v Gaaga Enterprises Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 271 of 2011)
  • Margaret Kato & Another v Nuulu Nalwoga (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 03 of 2013)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Stephen Mabosi (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1996)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sino East Africa Trade Development Company Limited & Another v Dida Investment Consult Limited (Civil Suit 320 of 2021) [2023] UGCommC 273 (20 October 2023)
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.