Wakilii

Sokowatch SMC Limited v Dikan Distributors Limited (Civil Suit No. 47 of 2024)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 165 · 2026 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of money paid for goods not delivered
Decision
Judgment entered for the Plaintiff with refund of undelivered goods value, general damages, 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

The court held that where a buyer pays for goods under a commercial supply contract but the supplier fails to deliver goods equivalent to the full payment, the buyer is entitled to recover the undelivered balance under the doctrine of money had and received for total failure of consideration. The defendant's failure to produce delivery documentation or challenge the plaintiff's reconciliation evidence established non-delivery. The plaintiff was awarded the balance, general damages for financial disruption, interest at 23% per annum, and costs.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the Plaintiff with refund of undelivered goods value, general damages, interest, and costs

Facts

Between 2021 and 2022, the Plaintiff contracted the Defendant to supply fast-moving consumer goods including sugar, vegetable oil, and bar soap. The Plaintiff issued purchase orders and paid UGX 7,650,822,326 but the Defendant only supplied goods worth UGX 7,598,916,926, leaving a balance of UGX 51,905,400. An internal audit in early 2023 revealed the discrepancy. The Plaintiff demanded a refund through correspondence and a lawyer's letter dated 14 August 2023, but the Defendant refused. The Defendant failed to appear at scheduling and hearing despite proper notice, and the matter proceeded ex parte under Order 17 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The Defendant did not adduce evidence to challenge the Plaintiff's reconciliation or prove full delivery.

Issues

  1. Whether the Defendant supplied/delivered to the Plaintiff all the goods ordered and paid for?
  2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to UGX 51,907,400/=, being the value of the goods paid for but not delivered by the Defendant?
  3. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The Defendant shall refund UGX 51,905,400/= to the Plaintiff.
  • The Plaintiff is awarded general damages of UGX 6,000,000/=.
  • Interest is awarded on the sum in (1) above at a rate of 23% per annum from the date of filing the suit until payment in full.
  • Costs of this suit are awarded to the Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Performance of Contract — Burden of Proof — Supplier's Obligation to Prove Delivery
Where a supplier asserts that it has fully performed its contractual obligation to deliver goods, the supplier bears the burden of producing delivery documentation to prove performance. Failure to produce such documentation confirms that the contractual obligation was not fulfilled.
Contract Law — Restitution — Money Had and Received — Total Failure of Consideration
A claim for money had and received lies where a plaintiff seeks to recover money paid to a defendant for which consideration has totally failed. The plaintiff must prove that the defendant received the money intended for the plaintiff's benefit, that the money was not used for the plaintiff's benefit, and that the defendant has not returned the money.
Contract Law — Damages — General Damages for Breach — Financial Disruption
Where a supplier's breach of contract deprives a buyer of money or goods that could have been used in business, causing financial disruption and interruption of trade, the buyer is entitled to general damages compensatory in nature to restore satisfaction for the injury suffered.
Contract Law — Interest — Commercial Transactions — Rate of 23% Per Annum
In a business transaction for supply of goods where a wrongdoer deprives a company of money needed in its business, interest at a rate of 23% per annum from the date of filing suit until payment in full is reasonable, taking into account inflation, currency depreciation, and the need to insulate the plaintiff against economic vagaries.
Civil Procedure — Ex Parte Proceedings — Non-Appearance Despite Notice — Order 17 Rule 4
Where a defendant fails to appear at scheduling and hearing despite proper notice by letter and email, and fails to comply with court directives for filing scheduling notes, trial bundle, and witness statements, the court may order that the matter proceed ex parte against the defendant under Order 17 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Unchallenged Pleaded Figures
Where pleaded figures are not challenged by the defendant, the plaintiff is taken to have proved the claim to the satisfaction of the court.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (13)

  • John Bwiza v Patrick Yowasi Kadama (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2011)
  • Cheng Chao and 2 Others v Zhang Jun and 3 Others (Civil Suit No. 220 of 2020)
  • William Kasozi v DFCU Bank Ltd (HCCS No. 1326 of 2000)
  • Roko Construction Co. Limited v Attorney General (HCCS No. 517 of 2008)
  • Gloria Kubajo & Oloye Venance Kolley v Francis Drate (HCCS No. 889 of 2020)
  • Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited v Akeem Badiru (HCCS No. 682 of 2018)
  • Kabandize John Baptist and 21 Others v Kampala Capital City Authority (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 36 of 2016)
  • Takiya Kashwahiri and Another v Kajungu Denis (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 85 of 2011)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Deo Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
  • Milly Masembe v Sugar Corporation (U) Ltd and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2000)
  • Wallersteiner v Moir [1975] 1 All ER 849
  • Mohanlal Kakubhai Radia v Warid Telecom Uganda Ltd (HCCS No. 224 of 2011)
  • Uganda Development Bank v Muganga Construction Co. Ltd [1981] HCB 35

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sokowatch SMC Limited v Dikan Distributors Limited (Civil Suit No. 47 of 2024) [2026] UGCommC 165 (14 April 2026)
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.