Wakilii

Sulait Semakulai v Builtrust Construction Co. Ltd and Another (Civil Suit No. 582 of 2014)

High Court · [2017] UGCOMMC 286 · 2017 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of loan advanced to defendants
Decision
Judgment entered for plaintiff for refund of loan principal, 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 where a plaintiff proved that he advanced UGX 200,000,000 to the defendants as a loan in 2007 and the defendants neither repaid the sum nor adduced evidence to dispute the claim, the plaintiff was entitled to a refund of the principal sum, general damages for deprivation of use of funds, interest on general damages at 6% per annum from judgment until payment in full, and costs.

Outcome

Judgment entered for plaintiff for refund of loan principal, general damages, interest, and costs

Facts

In 2007, the second defendant acting for the first defendant approached the plaintiff for financial assistance of UGX 200,000,000 to boost the first defendant's construction business. The plaintiff advanced the sum in cash after withdrawing it from Standard Chartered Bank. The first defendant issued a post-dated cheque for UGX 220,000,000 dated 1 July 2011, signed by the second defendant as managing director. The plaintiff banked the cheque on 14 July 2011 after informing the defendants, but it bounced because the defendants had closed the bank account on the same day. The defendants executed a memorandum of understanding acknowledging receipt of UGX 200,000,000 and undertaking to repay it, but never did. When the matter came for hearing on 23 January 2017, the defendants' counsel and the defendants themselves failed to attend despite proper service, and the court directed that the matter proceed ex parte.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendants owe the plaintiff any money
  2. What remedies are available to the parties

Orders

  • The plaintiff is entitled to a refund of UGX 200,000,000 by the defendants.
  • The plaintiff is awarded general damages of UGX 40,000,000.
  • Interest on the general damages at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of judgment till payment in full is awarded to the plaintiff.
  • Costs of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Loan Agreements — Burden of Proof — Proof of Advance and Non-Repayment
Where a plaintiff adduces evidence of advancing money to a defendant as a loan, supported by documentary evidence including a bounced cheque and a memorandum of understanding acknowledging the debt, and the defendant fails to adduce any evidence disputing the claim or attend court to defend the allegations, the plaintiff has discharged the burden of proving the loan and entitlement to repayment.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Assessment — Loss of Use of Money
General damages may be awarded to a plaintiff who is a businessman for deprivation of use of money lent to defendants and not repaid, where the plaintiff establishes that he suffered financial loss because he could not put the money to better use that would have generated more income. In assessing quantum, courts are guided by the value of the subject matter, the economic inconvenience suffered, and the nature and extent of the breach.
Damages & Quantum — Interest — Discretionary Award — Loss of Use of Money
Where interest is not stipulated in a contract or agreement between parties, an award of interest is discretionary and should be granted to compensate a plaintiff for being kept out of his money while the defendant had use of it. The basis of the award is that the defendant has deprived the plaintiff of money which he needed for use, and mere replacement of money years later is not adequate compensation.
Civil Procedure — Ex Parte Proceedings — Failure to Attend Hearing
Where a defendant and his counsel fail to attend court for a scheduled hearing despite proper service of a hearing notice and acknowledgment of receipt, the court may direct that the matter proceed ex parte and enter judgment on the evidence adduced by the plaintiff.

Cases cited (13)

  • Ahmed Ibrahim Bholm v Car & General Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2002)
  • Strom v Hutcheson [1905] AC 515
  • Musisi Edward v Babihuga Hilda (2007) HCB Vol. 1 84
  • Kazinga Channel Office World Ltd v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 276 of 2005)
  • Wallersteiner v Moir [1975] QB 373
  • Harbutt's Plasticide Ltd v Wayne Tank & Pump Co Ltd [1970] 1 QB 447
  • Superior Construction & Engineering Ltd v Notay Engineering Industries Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 702 of 1989)
  • Kibimba Rice Ltd v Umar Salim (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 77 of 1992)
  • Charles Acire v Myanna Engola (High Court Civil Suit No. 143 of 1993)
  • Haji Asuman Mutekanga v Equator Growers (U) Ltd (supra)
  • Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd v Haji Yahaya Sekalega T/A Sekalega Enterprises (supra)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
  • Bank of Baroda v Wilson Buyonja Kamugunda (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2004)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sulait Semakulai v Builtrust Construction Co. Ltd and Another (Civil Suit No. 582 of 2014) [2017] UGCommC 286 (16 March 2017)
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.