Wakilii

Ssenkumba v Kanzaire & Anor (Civil Suit No. 343 of 2020)

High Court · [2022] UGCOMMC 43 · 2022 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; default judgment entered; ex parte hearing for assessment of damages
Decision
Judgment entered for plaintiff; defendants ordered to pay UGX 133,500,000 plus interest at 12% per annum from judgment date until payment in full

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

In a breach of contract claim involving cryptocurrency and forex trading investments, the court held that where default judgment has been entered and the matter proceeds to assessment of damages, the plaintiff is entitled to recover both the capital sum invested and the guaranteed contractual returns. The court awarded UGX 133,500,000 comprising the UGX 25,000,000 capital investment plus UGX 108,500,000 being the balance of guaranteed 10% weekly returns for 12 months under four Memorandums of Understanding, less amounts already paid before breach.

Outcome

Judgment entered for plaintiff; defendants ordered to pay UGX 133,500,000 plus interest at 12% per annum from judgment date until payment in full

Facts

The plaintiff invested UGX 25,000,000 with the defendants (UGX 10,000,000 in September 2019 and UGX 15,000,000 in October 2019) for cryptocurrency and forex trading under four Memorandums of Understanding. The defendants guaranteed 10% weekly returns for 12 months on both investments. The first defendant made payments until 9 December 2019, after which all payments ceased. The plaintiff claimed UGX 120,000,000 as money due. The defendants failed to file defences despite being served. Default judgment was entered on 9 November 2020 under Order 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The matter proceeded ex parte for assessment of damages.

Issues

  1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to damages in this matter?
  2. To what extent should the Plaintiff be granted damages (if at all)?

Orders

  • The Plaintiff is awarded Uganda Shillings UGX 133,500,000 (One Hundred and Thirty Three Million Five Hundred Thousand Uganda Shillings) as his initial investment and the contracted and guaranteed return on his investment.
  • The Plaintiff is awarded interest of 12% per annum from the date of this Judgment until payment in full.
  • The Plaintiff is awarded costs in this suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Default Judgment — Order 9 CPR — Liquidated Demand and Pecuniary Damages in Same Plaint
Where a plaint claims both a liquidated sum and pecuniary damages, and the defendant fails to file a defence, the court may enter final judgment for the liquidated demand under Order 9 rule 6 and interlocutory judgment for pecuniary damages under Order 9 rule 8, allowing the plaintiff to proceed to assessment of damages.
Damages & Quantum — Special Damages — Pleading and Proof Requirements
Special damages must be not only specifically pleaded but also specifically proven and particularised in the plaint. A plaintiff is required to give specific warning in the pleadings of the items constituting the claim for special damages. Where the basis of a claimed amount is not clearly brought out and particularised in the plaint, it cannot be categorised as special damages.
Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Assessment of Damages — Guaranteed Returns
Where parties execute memorandums of understanding guaranteeing specific weekly returns on investment for a fixed period, and the defendant breaches by ceasing payments, the plaintiff is entitled to recover both the capital sum invested and the balance of guaranteed contractual returns for the agreed period, less any amounts already paid before the breach.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (7)

  • Lloyds Forex Bureau v Securex Agencies (U) Ltd (Civil Suit No. 358 of 2012)
  • National Social Security Fund v Kisubi High School (Civil Suit No. 440 of 2011)
  • Abbey Panel & Sheet Metal Co. Ltd v Barson Products (a firm) [1947] 2 ALL ER 809
  • Musoke v Departed Asians Custodian Board [1990-1994] EA 219
  • Uganda Telecom v Tanzanite Corporation [2005] EA 351
  • Mutekanga v Equator Growers (U) Ltd [1995-1998] 2 EA 219
  • Uganda Breweries Ltd v Uganda Railways Corporation (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2001)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ssenkumba v Kanzaire & Anor (Civil Suit No. 343 of 2020) [2022] UGCommC 43 (28 June 2022)
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.