Wakilii

Ssemawere v African Express Airways [2025] UGCOMMC 10

High Court · 2025 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 owed, proceeding ex parte after defendant failed to prosecute defence
Decision
Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff with orders for payment of money owed, special damages, 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

Held that the plaintiff had locus standi to sue despite the defendant's objection that the contract was with a corporate entity. The court found that a valid contract existed between the parties where the plaintiff acted as the defendant's representative in Uganda, and that the defendant breached the contract by failing to pay USD 123,384.03 for avionic parts supplied and by failing to reimburse the plaintiff for costs incurred in representing the defendant's interests. The plaintiff was entitled to recover the outstanding amount plus proven special damages.

Outcome

Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff with orders for payment of money owed, special damages, general damages, interest and costs

Facts

The plaintiff, an aviation consultant, was appointed by the defendant airline in 2011 to represent them at Entebbe International Airport and liaise with the Civil Aviation Authority. In September 2014 and May 2016, the defendant instructed the plaintiff to procure avionic parts for their aircraft. The plaintiff purchased the parts and delivered them to the defendant in Nairobi. The defendant agreed to pay in four installments but failed to pay the balance of USD 123,384.03. The plaintiff also incurred expenses setting up an office, conducting marketing activities, and securing 5th Freedom Flight rights on behalf of the defendant. The defendant terminated the plaintiff's contract without reimbursing these expenses. The defendant raised a preliminary objection claiming the plaintiff lacked locus standi as the contract was with a corporate entity, Sema Aviation Services Limited. After a default judgment was entered and later set aside by consent, the defendant filed a defence but failed to prosecute the matter further.

Issues

  1. Whether the Plaintiff has locus to bring this suit against the Defendant?
  2. Whether there was a contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant for the supply of assorted avionic parts?
  3. Whether the defendant breached the aforesaid contract?
  4. Whether the defendant is liable to reimburse the Plaintiff for the costs incurred while representing the defendant and its interests in Uganda?
  5. What are the available remedies to the parties?

Orders

  • There was a contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
  • There was a breach of contract by the Defendant.
  • The Plaintiff is entitled to recover USD 123,384.03 being money owed for the avionic parts supplied.
  • The Plaintiff is entitled to recover USD 21,975 and UGX 3,330,000 in special damages.
  • The Plaintiff is awarded General damages of UGX 50,000,000.
  • Interest of 12% per annum on the suit sum and special damages from May 2016 until payment in full.
  • The Plaintiff is awarded the costs of the suit against the Defendant.

Rules and key headnotes

Locus Standi — Burden of Proof — Corporate Identity
Where a defendant alleges that a plaintiff lacks locus standi on the basis that the contract was with a separate corporate entity and not with the plaintiff personally, the burden of proof lies on the defendant to establish that the plaintiff is indeed a separate entity from the corporate body, and the defendant's failure to adduce evidence or prosecute that defence results in the plaintiff's rebuttal evidence standing unchallenged.
Ex Parte Proceedings — Effect of Written Statement of Defence
Where a defendant files a Written Statement of Defence but thereafter takes no further action and does not appear to prosecute the defence, the matter proceeds ex parte with the Written Statement of Defence on record and considered by the court, as parties in civil matters are bound by their pleadings which form the record.
Formation of Contract — Agent Appointment — Informal Appointment
An agent may be appointed or have authority conferred by word of mouth save where the agent is appointed to execute an instrument under seal on behalf of the principal, and evidence of an appointment letter addressed to a third party introducing the plaintiff as the person fully responsible for the defendant's operations constitutes sufficient proof of a contractual relationship.
Breach of Contract — Failure to Pay for Goods Supplied
Where a plaintiff supplies goods on the defendant's instructions and the defendant undertakes to pay in installments but fails to pay the outstanding balance despite the plaintiff having fulfilled his obligation, the defendant is in breach of contract and liable to pay the outstanding amount.
Principal and Agent — Duty to Indemnify — Reimbursement of Expenses
Under Contracts Act s.155, a principal is liable to indemnify an agent against the consequences of all lawful acts done in the exercise of authority conferred, and where an agent incurs expenses in good faith on the principal's instructions to further the principal's business establishment, the agent is entitled to reimbursement of those proven expenses.
Special Damages — Strict Proof — Discrepancy in Pleadings and Evidence
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved, and where there is a contradiction between the total summation of amounts pleaded and the summation in the evidence adduced, the court will only award special damages for those expenditures actually proven by documentary evidence or cogent verbal evidence, excluding anticipatory gains which do not constitute past expenditures.
Interest — Discretion of Court — Rate and Commencement
The court has discretion under Civil Procedure Act s.26(2) to award interest where the defendant has taken and used the plaintiff's money and benefited from it, and considering inflation and foreign exchange rates over the years, an interest rate of 12% per annum from the date the suit amount crystallized until payment in full is just and fair to compensate the plaintiff's unjust deprivation.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (22)

  • Jani Properties Ltd v Dar es Salaam City Council [1966] EA 281
  • Struggle (U) Ltd v Pan African Insurance Co Ltd [1990] ALR 46-47
  • Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372
  • Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Co Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd [1969] EA 696
  • Njau and others v City Council of Nairobi [1976-1985] 1 EA 397
  • Dima Dominic Poro v Inyani and Another (Civil Appeal No. 0017 of 2016)
  • Tororo Cement Co Ltd v Frokina International Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2001)
  • Salomon v Salomon [1897] AC 22
  • Massa v Achen [1978] HCB 279
  • Green Boat Entertainment Ltd v City Council of Kampala (HCCS No. 0580 of 2003)
  • Ronald Kasibante v Shell Uganda Ltd (Civil Suit No. 542 of 2006)
  • Alexander Logios v Attorney General of Nigeria [1970] NCLR 130
  • Mugabi John v Attorney General (CS No. 133 of 2022)
  • Kampala City Council v Nakaye [1972] EA 446
  • Storms v Hutchinson [1905] AC 515
  • Haji Asuman Mutekanga v Equator Growers (U) Ltd (SCCA No. 7 of 1995)
  • Kyambadde v Mpigi District Administration [1983] HCB 44
  • Kampala District Land Board & George Mitala v Venansio Babweyana (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2007)
  • Premchandra Shenoi & Anor v Maximov Oleg Petrovich (SCCA No. 9 of 2003)
  • Sietco v Noble Builders (U) Ltd (SCCA No. 31 of 1995)
  • Harry Ssempa v Kamabagambire David (HCCS 408 of 2014)
  • Lyamuleme David v AG (SCCA No. 4 of 2013)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ssemawere v African Express Airways 2025 UGCommC 10 (10 January 2025)
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.