Wakilii

Somochem Uganda Limited v Namanve Industries Limited and Another (Civil Suit No. 3 of 2024)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 248 · 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 liquidated debt under Order 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Decision
Judgment entered for the Plaintiff for USD 239,074.75 with interest and costs against both Defendants jointly and severally

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

Held that the Plaintiff proved supply of polymer raw materials on credit to the 1st Defendant and that USD 239,074.75 remained unpaid. The Defendants' plea of frustration failed for lack of evidence that goods were seized by UNBS. Unchallenged documentary evidence established the debt. The 2nd Defendant was held jointly and severally liable under a personal guarantee executed on 10 October 2019. Judgment entered for the Plaintiff with interest at 12% per annum from date of filing and costs.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the Plaintiff for USD 239,074.75 with interest and costs against both Defendants jointly and severally

Facts

The Plaintiff supplied polymer raw materials to the 1st Defendant on credit terms requiring payment within thirty days. Between 1 February 2023 and 31 March 2023, goods valued at USD 268,185.50 were supplied. The 1st Defendant made two partial payments totalling USD 29,109.75, leaving a balance of USD 239,074.75. The 2nd Defendant, a director and shareholder of the 1st Defendant, had executed a personal guarantee dated 10 October 2019 securing the 1st Defendant's obligations. Despite demand, including a letter dated 13 November 2023, the balance remained unpaid. The Defendants pleaded that the goods were seized by the Uganda National Bureau of Standards as substandard, frustrating the contract, but adduced no evidence at trial and did not cross-examine the Plaintiff's witness.

Issues

  1. Whether the Defendants are liable for payment of USD 239,074.75.
  2. Whether the 2nd Defendant is liable under the personal guarantee dated 10 October 2019 for the debt of the 1st Defendant.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the Plaintiff against the Defendants jointly and severally for USD 239,074.75.
  • Interest awarded at 12% per annum from the date of filing the suit until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Burden of Proof — Admissions in Pleadings
Admissions contained in pleadings constitute evidence against the party making them unless withdrawn or explained.
Evidence — Unchallenged Evidence — Acceptance as Truthful
Where evidence is not challenged in cross-examination, the court is entitled to treat it as truthful unless there are compelling reasons to doubt its credibility or it is inherently incredible.
Contract Law — Frustration — Burden of Proof
The burden of proving frustration lies upon the party asserting it. The party must demonstrate that a supervening event rendered performance impossible or fundamentally different from what was originally contemplated. The doctrine does not operate automatically and does not arise merely because performance becomes more difficult or inconvenient.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Facts Especially Within Knowledge of a Party
Where a fact lies especially within the knowledge of a party, the burden of proving that fact lies upon that party.
Contract Law — Guarantee — Liability of Guarantor
A guarantor's liability is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor and arises upon the latter's default. The guarantor undertakes to answer for the debt, default, or miscarriage of another, and once the principal debtor fails to perform the obligation guaranteed, the guarantor becomes liable in accordance with the terms of the guarantee.
Contract Law — Guarantee — Consideration
Anything done for the benefit of the principal debtor constitutes sufficient consideration for a guarantee. Continued supply of goods on credit provides valid consideration for a guarantor's undertaking.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (8)

  • Sebuliba v Co-operative Bank Ltd [1982] HCB 130
  • Interfreight Forwarders (U) Ltd v East African Development Bank (Civil Appeal No. 33 of 1992)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Stephen Mabosi (SCCA No. 29 of 1998)
  • Mate Bilhwangero Enos v Muhindo Oniz (HCCA No. 49 of 2016)
  • Davis Contractors Ltd v Fareham Urban District Council [1956] AC 696
  • Monday v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2010)
  • Paul Kasagga & Another v Barclays Bank (U) Ltd (HCT-00-CC-MA-112 of 2009)
  • Blackburn Bobbin Co. Ltd v Allen (TW) & Sons Ltd [1918] 1 KB 540

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Somochem Uganda Limited v Namanve Industries Limited and Another (Civil Suit No. 3 of 2024) [2026] UGHC 248 (13 March 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.