Ssempa v Kambagambire (Civil Suit No. 408 of 2014)

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

Held that a valid and binding Memorandum of Understanding existed between the parties under which the defendant agreed to refund UGX 65,000,000 to the plaintiff after it was discovered the defendant was not the registered proprietor of land sold to the plaintiff. The defendant's failure to pay the agreed sum constituted breach of contract. The plaintiff was entitled to the principal sum, the contractually agreed monthly penalty of UGX 2,000,000 from date of breach until full payment, general damages of UGX 20,000,000, interest at 10% per annum on the judgment sum from date of judgment, and costs.

Outcome

Judgment entered for plaintiff with orders for payment of principal sum, contractual penalty, general damages, interest and costs

Facts

The plaintiff purchased land from the defendant comprised in Singo, Block 487 Plot 11 at Kagaba Mutuba 1 Singo Mubende District and paid UGX 54,000,000. Upon survey, it was discovered the defendant was not the registered proprietor of the land. The parties executed a Memorandum of Understanding dated 29 March 2013 whereby the defendant agreed to refund UGX 65,000,000 to the plaintiff by 29 June 2013. The MOU included a penalty clause requiring the defendant to pay UGX 2,000,000 per month in default until the debt was paid in full. The defendant failed to pay the refund despite repeated reminders. The defendant filed a Written Statement of Defence contending he did not know how to write and could not have signed the MOU, but did not dispute the sale agreement and failed to appear to defend the suit. The court noted the signatures on both the sale agreement and MOU appeared similar.

Issues

1. Whether the suit Memorandum of Understanding is binding on the defendant.
2. Whether the defendant is in breach of the suit Memorandum of Understanding.
3. What remedies are available to the plaintiff.

Orders

• The defendant to pay the plaintiff UGX 65,000,000 being the outstanding amount as per the MOU.
• The defendant to pay the plaintiff UGX 2,000,000 being monthly penalty agreed upon from the date of breach till payment in full.
• General damages of UGX 20,000,000.
• Interest of 10% per annum on the above from date of judgment till payment in full.
• Costs of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (4)

• Contract Act s.10(1)
• Civil Procedure Act s.26(1)
• Civil Procedure Act s.27(2)
• Civil Procedure Rules O.9 r.1(1)

Cases cited (6)

• Greenboat Entertainment Ltd v City Council of Kampala (Civil Suit No. 580 of 2003)
• Nakana Trading Co. Ltd v Coffee Marketing Board (Civil Suit No. 137 of 1991)
• Bank of Uganda v Fred William Masaba & 5 Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1998)
• Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd Vs Mardon (1976) 2 ALL ER
• Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
• Mohanlal Kakubhai Radia v Warid Telecom Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 234 of 2011)

Cases citing this judgment (5)

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.

• Pride Micro-Finance Limited v Musana (HCT-01-CV-CS 2 of 2021)
• Seyalata v Uganda Revenue Authority (HCT-01-CV-CS 68 of 2021)
• Kyakuwa and Others v Attorney General (Civil Suit 371 of 2016)
• Igonyo and 2 Others v Ongecu and Another (Civil Suit 34 of 2014)
• Mujuni v HAKS Investments Ltd and Anor (Civil Suit No. 446 of 2018)

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