Wakilii

St. Balikuddembe Market Stalls, Space and Lock-Up Shop Owners Association Limited (SSLOA) v Kampala Capital City Authority (CIVIL SUIT NO. 353 OF 2018)

High Court · [2020] UGHCCD 1 · 2020 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for refund of premium and damages arising from breach of consent judgment and failure of consideration
Decision
Plaintiff's suit allowed with damages and interest; defendant's counter-claim dismissed

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 3 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 3 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations rising — 3 citing cases on record, 3 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 defendant's admission of receipt of UGX 4,200,000,000 entitled the plaintiff to judgment on that sum under Order 13 rule 6. The plaintiff, having obtained the money through a commercial loan at 19% interest and provided evidence of the loan facility, was entitled to interest on the full loan amount of UGX 4,800,000,000 at the prevailing bank rates from March 2011 until judgment, as the defendant had kept the plaintiff out of its money and failed to deliver the promised lease. General damages of UGX 1,500,000,000 awarded for breach of contract and resulting economic inconvenience. Counter-claim dismissed.

Outcome

Plaintiff's suit allowed with damages and interest; defendant's counter-claim dismissed

Facts

The plaintiff association and defendant KCCA entered a consent judgment in 2010 requiring KCCA to grant a lease of St. Balikuddembe Market land. The plaintiff paid UGX 4,200,000,000 as premium and ground rent using a commercial loan from DFCU Bank at 19% interest. KCCA represented to the bank it owned the land and would deliver the lease. KCCA then discovered it did not own all the land and could not deliver the lease titles. The plaintiff defaulted on its loan, and DFCU Bank foreclosed and sold one of the plaintiff's properties in 2014. The plaintiff subsequently obtained three land titles directly from Kampala District Land Board for portions of the market. The defendant admitted receiving the UGX 4,200,000,000 but failed to deliver the lease.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the accumulated interest of UGX 6,384,000,000 as claimed in the plaint.
  2. Whether the counterclaim discloses a cause of action against the counter defendants.
  3. Whether the Plaintiff/1st Counter-Defendant and 2nd Counter Defendant are liable on the Counter Claim.
  4. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Judgment entered on admission for UGX 4,200,000,000.
  • Plaintiff awarded UGX 4,800,000,000 as the total loan advanced.
  • Interest on the loan amount awarded based on the prevailing bank interest rate on the total loan from 4 March 2011 until date of judgment.
  • Plaintiff awarded UGX 500,000,000 being legal fees to defend recovery action.
  • Plaintiff awarded UGX 1,150,000,000 as loss for the sale of Kibuga Block 12, Plot 388 Mengo Kisenyi.
  • General damages of UGX 1,500,000,000 awarded.
  • Decretal award including both special and general damages shall attract an interest rate of 24% from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Costs awarded to the plaintiff.
  • Counter-claim dismissed with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Judgment on Admission — Order 13 rule 6
Where a party makes an unequivocal admission of facts either in pleadings or otherwise, the court may under Order 13 rule 6 enter judgment on the admission without waiting for determination of other questions between the parties. Admissions must be plain and obvious, clearly readable, and leave no room for doubt.
Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Failure of Consideration
A total failure of consideration occurs where sufficient consideration was contemplated when the contract was entered but either on account of innate defect in the thing to be given or non-performance in whole or in part of what the promisee agreed to, nothing of value could be or was received by the promisee. The party who received payment under such circumstances must disgorge the value received to prevent unjust enrichment.
Damages & Quantum — Interest — Commercial Transactions
Where a defendant has kept a plaintiff out of money in a commercial transaction and used it himself, the plaintiff is entitled to commercial interest rates rather than the court rate. Where the plaintiff obtained the money through a commercial loan, the interest should be computed on the entire loan amount at the prevailing bank rates, as such loss was reasonably foreseeable by the defendant at the time of contracting.
Damages & Quantum — Special Damages — Proof and Pleading
Special damages must be strictly pleaded and proved. A party may not at trial seek to prove special damages in amounts significantly different from those pleaded without amending the pleadings, as parties are bound by their pleadings under Order 6 rule 7.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Assessment Principles
General damages are intended to place the injured party in the position they would have been in had the defendant not committed the wrong. The court must consider the value of the subject matter, the economic inconveniences the party was put through, and the nature and extent of the breach. The award must not amount to a profit or unjust enrichment.
Contract Law — Damages for Breach — Reasonable Contemplation
Under section 61(1) of the Contracts Act 2010, for loss arising from breach of contract to be recoverable, it must be such as the party in breach should reasonably have contemplated as not unlikely to result. It is sufficient that the party should have contemplated loss of the same type or kind as that which in fact occurred; the precise nature of the loss need not be in contemplation.
Civil Procedure — Third Party Proceedings — Indemnity and Contribution
In the absence of a third party order and judgment rendered against a defendant, and where there is no agreement providing for an indemnity clause, there is no legal basis for a defendant to be liable for legal fees and related costs incurred by a plaintiff in relation to proceedings involving third parties.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (21)

  • Kibalama v Alfasan Belgie CVBA (2004) 2 EA 146
  • Dembe Trading Enterprises Limited v Global Electrical & Electronics Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 202 of 2011)
  • Momanyi v Hatimy & Anor (2003) 2 EA 600
  • Choitram v Nazari (1984) KLR 327
  • Nsubuga v Rwomushoro (Civil Appeal No. 102 of 2012)
  • Harbutt's Plasticine Ltd v Wayne Tank and Pump Co Ltd [1970] QB 447
  • Oketha v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 0069 of 2004)
  • Mohanlal Kakubhai Radia v Warid Telecom Ltd (Civil Suit No. 234 of 2011)
  • Kinyera v The Management Committee of Laroo Boarding Primary School (Civil Suit No. 099 of 2013)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Stephen Mabosi (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1996)
  • Hadley v Baxendale (1843-1860) ALL ER 461
  • Sietco v Noble Builders Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 31 of 1995)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Wanume David Kitamirike (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 43 of 2010)
  • Shakil Pathan v DFCU Bank Limited (Civil Suit No. 236 of 2017)
  • Kibimba Rice Ltd v Umar Salim (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1992)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
  • John Eletu v Uganda Airlines Corporation [1984] HCB 44
  • Oyoo Francis v Olanya Martin (Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2017)
  • Dr. Denis Lwamafa v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 79 of 1983) [1992] 1 KALR 21
  • Ouma v Nairobi City Council [1976] KLR 298
  • Kakubhai Mohanlal v Warid Telecom Uganda (Civil Suit No. 224 of 2011)

Cases citing this judgment (3)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

St. Balikuddembe Market Stalls, Space and Lock-Up Shop Owners Association Limited (SSLOA) v Kampala Capital City Authority (CIVIL SUIT NO. 353 OF 2018) [2020] UGHCCD 1 (5 February 2020)
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.