Wakilii

Sserunjogi David v Kibirige Joseph [2025] UGHC 1577

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 fraud; interlocutory judgment entered; matter set down for formal proof
Decision
Judgment entered for the Plaintiff with refund of purchase money, contractual surcharge, 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 the defendant fundamentally breached a land purchase agreement by concealing an existing mortgage, refusing to provide verification documents, and registering an additional mortgage while continuing to receive payments. The plaintiff proved payment of UGX 107,000,000/= and was entitled to a refund plus a 10% contractual surcharge of UGX 10,700,000/=, general damages of UGX 30,000,000/=, interest at court rate from judgment, and costs. Special damages must be strictly proved; the plaintiff failed to prove the full claimed amount of UGX 178,600,000/=.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the Plaintiff with refund of purchase money, contractual surcharge, general damages, interest, and costs

Facts

On 20 December 2023, the plaintiff and defendant executed a land purchase agreement for land at Busiro Block 351 Plot 1362, Buddo Magwa, for UGX 300,000,000/=. The plaintiff requested copies of the land title, the defendant's identification, and boundary opening before completing payment, but the defendant refused and pressured him to pay. An independent search revealed the land was encumbered with a registered mortgage to Centenary Rural Development Bank Limited and the telephone number in the agreement was registered to a different person. The parties agreed the plaintiff would continue payments for the defendant to clear the mortgage, with completion by December 2024. The plaintiff paid UGX 107,000,000/= (proved amount) by 4 December 2024. Instead of redeeming the mortgage, the defendant secretly registered another mortgage of UGX 70,000,000/= on 28 November 2024 while continuing to receive payments. The defendant failed to file a defence and an interlocutory judgment was entered on 27 June 2025.

Issues

  1. Whether there was a breach of the land purchase agreement.
  2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a refund of UGX 178,600,000/= paid towards the purchase price.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The Plaintiff is entitled to a refund of UGX 107,000,000/= being monies paid under the land purchase agreement.
  • The Defendant shall pay a surcharge of UGX 10,700,000/= being 10% of the sum refunded as stipulated in paragraph 10 of the land purchase agreement.
  • General damages of UGX 30,000,000/= are awarded to the Plaintiff.
  • Interest at court rate per annum is awarded on the principal sum from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • The Defendant shall pay the costs of the suit to the Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Fundamental Breach — Failure to Deliver Unencumbered Title
Where a vendor under a land purchase agreement conceals an existing mortgage, refuses to provide verification documents, and registers an additional mortgage while continuing to receive payments, such conduct constitutes a fundamental breach of contract as it frustrates the purchaser's ability to secure the bargain and renders performance impossible.
Damages & Quantum — Special Damages — Strict Proof Required
Special damages, such as specific sums paid under a contract, must not only be specifically pleaded but must also be strictly proved. A court cannot award what has not been proved. Where a plaintiff claims payment of a certain sum but produces evidence proving only a lesser amount acknowledged in writing by the defendant, the court will award only the proved amount.
Contract Law — Remedies — Contractual Surcharge — Enforcement of Express Terms
Where a land purchase agreement contains an express provision that the vendor shall refund amounts paid together with a specified surcharge where the transaction fails due to the vendor's breach, the purchaser is entitled to enforce that contractual right and recover both the refund and the stipulated surcharge.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Assessment — Loss of Bargain
While land values generally appreciate, a claimant seeking damages for loss of bargain must prove their specific financial loss through expert evidence such as a valuation report. In the absence of such proof, the court may award a nominal amount for general damages to compensate for inconvenience and frustration caused by the defendant's breach.
Damages & Quantum — Exemplary Damages — Contractual Disputes — Restraint in Award
Exemplary or punitive damages are awardable with restraint and only in exceptional cases to punish egregious, high-handed, malicious, vindictive, or oppressive conduct. In contractual disputes where general damages and interest sufficiently compensate the plaintiff's loss, exemplary damages will not be awarded as punishment ought to be confined to criminal law.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (7)

  • Ronald Kasibante v Shell Uganda Ltd (HCCS No. 542 of 2006)
  • Hadley v Baxendale (1894) 9 Exch 341
  • Robert Cuossens v Attorney General (SCCA No. 8 of 1999)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi [2002] EA 305
  • Ahmed El Termewy v Hassan Awdi & Others (HCCS No. 95 of 2012)
  • Kinyera v Management Committee of Laroo Building Primary School (HCCS No. 099 of 2013)
  • Jennifer Behange & Others v School Outfitter (U) Limited (CACA No. 53 of 1999)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sserunjogi David v Kibirige Joseph 2025 UGHC 1577 (29 August 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.