Wakilii

Sseruwagi v Jamani & 2 Others (Civil Suit 1024 of 2019)

High Court · [2023] UGCOMMC 181 · 2023 Judgment for Defendant AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for payment of commission on property sale
Decision
Suit dismissed

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 a suit seeking to enforce an oral contract entered in 2017 for commission payment of USD 800,000 cannot be sustained under Section 10(5) of the Contracts Act 2010, which mandatorily requires contracts exceeding twenty-five currency points to be in writing. The Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 2018, which permits oral contracts for supply of services, cannot be applied retrospectively to a 2017 agreement. Courts will not enforce contracts entered in contravention of statute. Suit dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Suit dismissed

Facts

In June 2017, the plaintiff alleged that the 1st defendant, acting for himself and the 2nd defendant, entered into an oral agreement instructing him to find a buyer for property comprised in LRV 3122 Folio 11 Plot 80 Kira Road Kampala, with agreement for 10% commission on the sale price. In December 2017, the plaintiff claimed he introduced the 3rd defendant's agent to the 1st defendant. The 3rd defendant purchased the property for USD 800,000. The plaintiff sought payment of USD 80,000 commission. The 1st and 2nd defendants denied employing the plaintiff as agent and denied any oral agreement. They stated they approached the 3rd defendant directly through its Managing Director and negotiated the sale without the plaintiff's involvement. The 3rd defendant admitted the plaintiff introduced its agent to view the property and meet the 1st defendant. During cross-examination, the plaintiff conceded he and the 1st defendant had never actually agreed on the 10% commission rate.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff has a cause of action against the 1st and 2nd defendants premised on an oral contract for the payment of USD 80,000 purportedly executed sometime in 2017.
  2. Whether the 1st and 2nd defendants are indebted to the plaintiff.
  3. Whether the parties are entitled to the remedies sought for in their pleadings.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's suit dismissed with costs under Order 6 Rule 29 of the Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 as amended.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Formalities — Oral Contracts — Statutory Requirement for Writing
A contract the subject of which exceeds twenty-five currency points must be in writing as mandatorily required by Section 10(5) of the Contracts Act 2010. The use of the word 'shall' makes this requirement mandatory, and courts will not enforce oral contracts that exceed this threshold.
Statutory Interpretation — Retrospective Application — Acts of Parliament
An Act of Parliament cannot be applied retrospectively. The Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 2018, which commenced on 17 August 2018, cannot apply to contracts allegedly entered into in 2017.
Contract Law — Exception for Sale of Goods and Services — Non-Application to Pre-Commencement Contracts
Section 5 of the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 2018, which permits contracts for supply of services to be made orally, does not apply to contracts entered before the Act's commencement. The repealed Sale of Goods Act Cap 82 s.5 did not contain provisions permitting oral contracts for supply of services.
Contract Law — Illegal Contracts — Unenforceability
Courts will not enforce a contract that is expressly or impliedly forbidden by statute. A contract entered in contravention of Section 10(5) of the Contracts Act 2010 is unenforceable.
Contract Law — Formation — Consideration — Absence of Agreement
For a valid contract to exist, there must be agreement on consideration. Where a plaintiff concedes during cross-examination that the parties never agreed on the rate of commission, no valid contract has been formed.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (8)

  • JK Patel v Spear Motors Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1991)
  • John Kagwa v Kolin Insaat Turizm, Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.S and Nassur Bruhan (HCT-00-CC-CS-0318 of 2012)
  • Willy HC. Commercial Division Civil Appeal No. 03 of 2016
  • HJK Trading Company Limited (High Court Land Division Civil Suit No. 415 of 2018)
  • David May v Busitema Mining CIE Ltd (HCT-00-CV-CS-0086-2008)
  • Mariam Naigaga v Orient Bank Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 464 of 2013)
  • Stone & Rolls v B. Moore Stephens [2008] EWCA Civ 713
  • Makula International v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga & Anor (Court of Appeal No. 4 of 1981)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sseruwagi v Jamani & 2 Others (Civil Suit 1024 of 2019) [2023] UGCommC 181 (30 March 2023)
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.