Tamp Engineering Consultant Ltd v Macdowell Ltd (Civil Suit No. 224 of 2010) [2016] UGCommC 9 (25 January 2016)
[2016] UGCOMMC 9
Tamp Engineering Consultant Ltd v Macdowell Ltd (Civil Suit No. 224 of 2010)
High Court
· [2016] UGCOMMC 9
· 2016
Judgment for Plaintiff
AI-generated summary
↓ Download
Pin to watchlist
Add to matter
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.
Judicial journey
Appeal & case history
Follow this matter from the decision below through each appellate court.
Reversed
The decision below was overturned.
See the court’s words
“es of law in the Judgment of this court in Beatrice Odongo and Noah Ochota v Tamp Engineering Consultants; Civil Appeat No 8 of 2020 are vatid and remain, any execution proceedings and orders pursuant to the judgment in High Court (Commercial Division) Civit Suit No 224 of 2010 cannot proceed, the judgment f rom which execution proceedings arose having been set aside in this”
No later appellate decision was located in the Wakilii corpus. Linked from court records and operative language in the judgments.
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 it had jurisdiction to hear the suit as the contract stipulated Uganda law would govern and was signed in Kampala. The court found the Defendant breached the contract by taking over the road construction site and works before the contractual 28-day period for work stoppage had expired, depriving the Plaintiff of performance. Special damages of UGX 372,452,331 representing the contractual balance were awarded, along with general and exemplary damages, interest, and an order for return of equipment.
Outcome
Judgment entered for the Plaintiff with awards of special, general, and exemplary damages, interest, and order for return of equipment
Facts
The Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a road construction agreement on 15 August 2008 for rehabilitation of a 100.4 km road in South Sudan for UGX 1,600,000,000. The Plaintiff received UGX 700,000,000 advance and mobilised equipment and staff to site. Work commenced on 19 December 2008, but staff broke for Christmas on 20 December 2008. Upon returning on 18 January 2009, the Plaintiff's staff found the Defendant had taken over work operations using the Plaintiff's equipment. Communication efforts failed. The Defendant formally terminated the contract on 30 May 2009 alleging abandonment. At the time of takeover, 29 days had elapsed since work ceased. The Plaintiff alleged it was prevented from accessing the site and equipment. The Defendant claimed the Plaintiff abandoned the site after receiving 75% of the contract sum but only completing less than 15% of the work.
Issues
- Whether the court had jurisdiction to determine the matter.
- Whether the Defendant breached the contract.
- What remedies is the Plaintiff entitled to if any.
Orders
- Special damages of UGX 372,452,331 awarded to the Plaintiff.
- General damages of UGX 20,000,000 awarded to the Plaintiff.
- Exemplary damages of UGX 5,000,000 awarded to the Plaintiff.
- Interest on special damages at 21% per annum from date of filing suit until payment in full.
- Interest on general and exemplary damages at 6% per annum from date of judgment until payment in full.
- Return of the equipment left in South Sudan or the value thereof ordered.
- Costs of the suit awarded to the Plaintiff.
Rules and key headnotes
Proper Law of Contract — Choice of Law — Express Selection by Parties
Where parties expressly state that a contract shall be governed by a particular law, that law will be the proper law of contract, provided the selection is bona fide and there is no objection on grounds of public policy.
Jurisdiction — Contractual Jurisdiction Clauses — Absence of Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause
Where contracting parties agree to give a particular court exclusive jurisdiction and a claim is made in another forum, the court will ordinarily exercise its discretion to secure compliance with the contractual bargain unless the party suing in the non-contractual forum shows strong reasons for doing so. However, where there is no exclusive jurisdiction clause, and parties agreed the contract would be governed by Uganda laws, and the suit is filed where the contract was signed, the court has jurisdiction.
Breach of Contract — Fundamental Breach — Deprivation of Contractual Benefit
A fundamental breach is a breach that has a serious effect on the benefit that the innocent party would have otherwise derived from the contract. Where a party takes over works and bars the other party from accessing the site before the contractual period for work stoppage has expired, thereby depriving that party of a substantial part of the benefit expected from the remainder of the contract, that party commits a fundamental breach.
Completion Time — Time at Large — Reasonable Time for Performance
Where no date for completion of work is specified in a construction contract, the contractor's obligation is to complete within a reasonable time. What constitutes reasonable time is a question of fact to be considered in relation to circumstances which existed at the time the contract obligations were performed, excluding circumstances which were under the control of the contractor.
Special Damages — Proof — Balance of Probability
Special damages must be pleaded and strictly proved on the balance of probability. Where both parties agree to the sum received under a contract, the court may find that the plaintiff has proved the balance claimed as special damages to the required standard.
General Damages — Breach of Contract — Inconvenience
Breach of contract attracts general damages. Substantial physical inconvenience and discomfort caused by breach of contract will entitle the plaintiff to damages. General damages are what a court may award when it cannot point out any measure by which they are to be assessed except the opinion and judgment of a reasonable person.
Exemplary Damages — Wrongful Conduct for Profit
Exemplary or punitive damages are intended to punish and deter. They are additional to an award intended to compensate a plaintiff fully for loss suffered. Circumstances under which exemplary damages can be awarded include wrongful conduct calculated to yield a benefit in excess of compensation likely to be payable to the plaintiff.
Legislation cited (7)
Cases cited (8)
- Uganda Telecom Ltd vs. Rodrigo Chacon T/a Andes Alpes Trading
- Donoline v Armco Inc & Others [2002] ILloyd's Rep 425
- National Power PLC v United Gas Co Ltd & Another [1998] All ER (D) 231
- Part Land Hick v Raymond and Reid [1893] AC 22
- Haji Asumani Mutekanga v Equator Growers (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1995)
- Robbialac Paints (Uganda) Ltd vs. K.B Construction Ltd [1976] HCB 45
- General and Finance Facilities v Cooks Cars (Ramford) [1963] 1 WLR 644
- Roko Construction Co Ltd v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 517 of 2005)
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
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.
Tamp Engineering Consultant Ltd v Macdowell Ltd (Civil Suit No. 224 of 2010) [2016] UGCommC 9 (25 January 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.