Wakilii

Suzanna Haarbosch v Mohammed Khalil Dagher (Civil Suit 310 of 2015)

High Court · [2016] UGCOMMC 293 · 2016 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for breach of share sale and purchase agreement
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff for breach of share sale and purchase agreement with damages and interest awarded

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (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 2 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. 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

The court held that the defendant breached the share sale and purchase agreement by failing to pay the outstanding principal sum of USD 22,375 despite agreeing to purchase shares in Kamtech Logistics (U) Ltd for USD 42,500. Financial difficulties caused by the Ebola epidemic in Sierra Leone do not excuse performance. The plaintiff was awarded the outstanding principal sum, interest at 6% per month from filing until payment in full, and USD 5,000 in general damages for embarrassment and inconvenience.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff for breach of share sale and purchase agreement with damages and interest awarded

Facts

On 17 December 2014, the plaintiff sold five shares in Kamtech Logistics (U) Ltd to the defendant for USD 42,500. USD 10,000 was set off against monies the defendant owed, leaving USD 32,500 payable. The defendant paid USD 8,125 promptly, then paid a further USD 12,000, leaving USD 22,375 outstanding. The agreement stipulated payment in instalments of USD 8,125 and imposed a 6% monthly penalty for late payment. The defendant failed to pay the remaining instalments. He claimed financial difficulties due to the Ebola epidemic in Sierra Leone affecting his real estate business and community resistance to an ethanol plant project. The defendant did not attend the hearing despite proper service.

Issues

  1. Whether there was breach of contract by the defendant.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the plaintiff.
  • Defendant to pay the outstanding principal sum of USD 22,375.
  • Interest awarded at 6% per month on the principal sum from the date of filing the suit until payment in full.
  • General damages of USD 5,000 awarded to the plaintiff.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Proof of Breach
A party alleging breach of contract must prove the terms of the contract and how it was breached; contractual obligations depend on the terms of the contract.
Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Definition
A breach of contract occurs when a party to the contract fails to fulfil the obligations imposed by the terms of the contract.
Contract Law — Frustration — Financial Hardship Not Excuse for Non-Performance
Financial difficulties, including external events such as epidemics affecting a party's business in another jurisdiction, do not excuse failure to perform contractual obligations where the contract remains capable of performance.
Damages & Quantum — Breach of Contract — Hadley v Baxendale Principles
Damages for breach of contract should be such as may fairly and reasonably be considered as arising naturally from the breach according to the usual course of things, or such as may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of both parties at the time of contract as the probable result of breach.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Embarrassment and Inconvenience
Where a plaintiff proves embarrassment, inconvenience, and mental distress owing to the defendant's breach of a commercial contract, an award of general damages for such non-pecuniary loss is appropriate.

Cases cited (3)

  • DFCU Bank Ltd v Ndibaza Naima & Anor (Civil Suit No. 80 of 2012)
  • Nakana Trading Co. Ltd v Coffee Marketing Board (1994) II KALR 15
  • Hadley v Baxendale [1854] 9 Exh 341

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

Suzanna Haarbosch v Mohammed Khalil Dagher (Civil Suit 310 of 2015) [2016] UGCommC 293 (22 December 2016)
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.