Wakilii

Stevo Traders Limited v Equity Bank Uganda Limited (Civil Suit 650 of 2024)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 142 · 2026 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 arising from a land sale agreement
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff with orders for refund of purchase price, general damages, special 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 High Court held that Equity Bank breached the land sale agreement by failing to deliver vacant possession of foreclosed property to Stevo Traders Limited within 30 days as contractually agreed, despite receiving full payment of UGX 80,000,000. The court ordered refund of the purchase price, general damages of UGX 30,000,000, special damages of UGX 11,280,000, interest at 8% per annum, and costs. The vendor's obligation to deliver vacant possession could not be excused by advising the purchaser to obtain an eviction order at the vendor's cost, as this was not part of the written agreement.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff with orders for refund of purchase price, general damages, special damages, interest, and costs

Facts

Stevo Traders Limited purchased foreclosed property from Equity Bank Uganda Limited for UGX 80,000,000 pursuant to a land sale agreement executed in November 2020. The plaintiff paid the full purchase price and the property was transferred into its name on 17 March 2021. Under clause 2.0(c) of the agreement, the defendant undertook to deliver vacant possession within 30 days from execution of the agreement. The defendant failed to deliver vacant possession, claiming it advised the plaintiff to obtain an eviction order at the defendant's cost. The plaintiff incurred expenses of UGX 11,280,000 for transfer fees, mortgage release fees, and legal fees. By the time of trial in June 2025, approximately four years after the agreement, the mortgagor remained in possession and the plaintiff had never obtained physical possession of the property.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant is in breach of contract?
  2. What are the remedies available to the parties?

Orders

  • The defendant refunds the plaintiff the purchase price of UGX 80,000,000.
  • An award of general damages of UGX 30,000,000.
  • An award of special damages of UGX 11,280,000.
  • Interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of this judgment until payment in full, on general damages.
  • Costs of the suit to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Vendor's Obligation to Deliver Vacant Possession
Where a land sale agreement expressly provides that the vendor shall deliver vacant possession within a specified time, the vendor is bound by that obligation and cannot substitute it with an arrangement requiring the purchaser to obtain an eviction order, even at the vendor's cost, unless such arrangement is reduced to writing as an addendum to the original agreement.
Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Failure to Deliver Vacant Possession as Breach
A vendor who has received full payment of the purchase price and transferred title but fails to deliver vacant possession as contractually agreed commits a breach of contract, and the continued unlawful possession by third parties constitutes a breach of the vendor's obligation to give vacant possession on completion of the sale.
Contract Law — Sale of Land — 'As Is' Condition — Scope and Limitation
The term 'as is' in a land sale agreement means that the property is sold in its existing physical condition and relieves the seller from liability for defects in that condition, but does not relieve the vendor of the obligation to deliver vacant possession where such obligation is expressly stipulated in the contract.
Contract Law — Remedies for Breach — Refund of Purchase Price
Where a vendor breaches a land sale agreement by failing to deliver vacant possession despite receiving full payment, the purchaser is entitled to a refund of the entire purchase price as the purpose for which the money was paid has failed.
Damages & Quantum — Interest on Refund — Rate and Commencement
Where a purchaser has been deprived of the use of money paid as purchase price due to the vendor's breach of contract, the purchaser is entitled to interest at a rate that is just and reasonable, taking into account inflation and depreciation of currency, from the date of judgment until payment in full.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Assessment for Breach of Land Sale Agreement
In assessing general damages for breach of a land sale agreement, the court considers factors including the period of deprivation of use of both the property and the purchase money, the loss of opportunity to invest the money elsewhere, and any mental distress or inconvenience suffered by the aggrieved party.
Contract Law — Remedies — Specific Performance — Discretionary Nature
Specific performance is a discretionary remedy and will not be granted where there is evidence that the defaulting party is unable or unwilling to perform the contractual obligation, particularly where a significant period has elapsed since the breach and the defaulting party has demonstrated lack of commitment to fulfilling the obligation.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (34)

  • Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372
  • Greenboat Entertainment Ltd v City Council of Kampala (Civil Suit No. 580 of 2003)
  • William Kasozi v DFCU Bank Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 1326 of 2000)
  • Printing and Numerical Registering Co v Simpson (1875) LR 19 Eq 462
  • Cargo World Logistics Ltd v Royale Group Africa Ltd (Civil Suit No. 157 of 2013)
  • Ronald Kasibante v Shell (U) Ltd (Civil Suit No. 542 of 2006)
  • Naigaga v Orient Bank (Civil Suit No. 464 of 2013)
  • Cargo World Logistics Limited v Royale Group Africa Limited (High Court Civil Suit No. 157 of 2013)
  • Michael Katungye v Fred Byamukama & Another (High Court Civil Suit No. 706 of 2020)
  • SBI International Holdings (U) Limited v COF International Co Limited (Civil Appeal No. 194 of 2014)
  • Kampala General Agency Ltd v Mody's (EA) Ltd [1963] EA 549
  • Kizito v David Kizito Kanonya and 7 Others (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2018)
  • Kyarimpa v Nassozi (Civil Suit No. 794 of 2016)
  • Dreams Limited v Pavilion Property Trustees Limited & Anor [2020] EWHC 1169 (Ch)
  • Cook v Taylor [1942] 1 Ch 349
  • Cook v Taylor [1942] 2 All ER 85
  • Ingel v Finch (1869) LR 4 QB 659
  • Dr Dennis Rwamafa v Attorney General [1992] KALR 21
  • Premchandra Shenoi & Anor v Maximov Oleg Petrovich (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2003)
  • Sietco v Noble Builders (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 31 of 1995)
  • Solomon Semakula Kayinda v Auger Revival Ministries Limited (Civil Suit No. 880 of 2020)
  • Mohanlal Kakubhai Radia v Warid Telecom Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 234 of 2011)
  • Kinyera v Management Committee of Laroo Boarding Primary School (High Court Civil Suit No. 99 of 2013)
  • Riches v Westminster Bank Ltd [1947] 1 All ER 469
  • Crescent Transportation Co Ltd v BM Technical Services Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2000)
  • Kampala District Land Board & George Mitala v Venansio Babweyana (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2007)
  • Bank of Uganda v Fred William Masaba & 5 Ors (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1998)
  • Stroms v Hutchinson [1905] AC 515
  • Chande and others v East African Airways Corporation [1964] EA 78
  • Asege Winnie v Opportunity Bank (U) Limited and Maad Limited (High Court Civil Suit No. 756 of 2013)
  • Betty Kizito v David Kizito Kanonya and 7 Ors (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2018)
  • Haji Asuman Mutekanga v Equator Growers (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1992)
  • Opende v Alin (1982-88) KALR 294
  • Sharif Osman v Haji Haruna Mulungwa (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 38 of 1995)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Stevo Traders Limited v Equity Bank Uganda Limited (Civil Suit 650 of 2024) [2026] UGCommC 142 (25 March 2026)
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.