Wakilii

Tibenderana Xavier v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 117 of 2008)

High Court · [2012] UGCOMMC 3 · 2012 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 for unpaid seedlings supplied under government programme
Decision
Judgment for plaintiff with special damages, general damages, interest, and costs awarded.

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 suit was not time barred as it was filed within three years from November 2006 when the plaintiff's claim was forwarded to the Permanent Secretary. The Attorney General was liable for payment as the plaintiff supplied 250,100 tea seedlings pursuant to a valid supply order dated 31 January 2004 endorsed by the District Agricultural Officer and other authorized officials before any directive halting the programme was issued. The plaintiff was entitled to special damages of UGX 50,020,000 with interest at 18% per annum from filing date and general damages of UGX 7,700,000 with interest at 21% from judgment date.

Outcome

Judgment for plaintiff with special damages, general damages, interest, and costs awarded.

Facts

In 2002, the Government of Uganda through the Ministry of Agriculture Animal Industry and Fisheries (MAAIF) initiated a programme to distribute tea plantlets to small holder growers to boost tea production. The ministry trained nursery farmers including the plaintiff and provided him with UGX 6,600,000 as non-refundable capital to establish a tea nursery. The plaintiff received a supply order dated 31 January 2004 signed by the District Agricultural Officer Hoima directing him to supply tea seedlings to farmers under the programme. Between May and September 2004, the plaintiff supplied 250,100 clonal tea seedlings valued at UGX 200 each (total UGX 50,020,000) to farmers as confirmed by Form 11 signed by extension officers, the District Agricultural Officer, and local council officials. After supply, the plaintiff was informed by letter dated 29 November 2004 that funding had been halted and nursery operators should find alternative markets. Despite multiple demands for payment and forwarding his claim through James Finlay Uganda Limited to the Permanent Secretary in November 2006, the plaintiff was never paid. The suit was filed on 2 May 2008.

Issues

  1. Whether the suit is time barred under the Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act.
  2. Whether the Attorney General is liable to pay the plaintiff for 250,100 seedlings supplied to the Ministry of Agriculture Animal Industry and Fisheries in the year 2004.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Judgment given for the plaintiff.
  • The plaintiff is awarded special damages of Uganda shillings 50,020,000.
  • The plaintiff is awarded interest on special damages at 18% per annum from the date of filing the suit till payment in full.
  • The plaintiff is awarded general damages for inconveniences suffered of shillings 7,700,000.
  • The plaintiff is awarded interest at 21% on general damages from the date of judgment till payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit are awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Limitation of Actions — Contract Claims Against Government — When Cause of Action Arises
For purposes of computing the limitation period under section 3 of the Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act in a claim for payment under a government contract, the cause of action arises not necessarily at the date of supply or delivery of goods but may arise when the government formally considers and refuses the claim for payment.
Government Contracts — Authority of Officers — Binding Effect of Orders by Authorized Officials
Where a supply order is duly endorsed by the District Agricultural Officer and other authorized extension officers on official ministry documents, such order creates a binding contractual obligation on the government even if funding for the programme is subsequently halted or withdrawn.
Government Contracts — Subsequent Directives — Effect on Prior Valid Orders
A directive halting a government programme issued after a valid supply order has been made and endorsed by authorized officials cannot invalidate the prior order or relieve the government of liability to a third party supplier who acted in good faith pursuant to the order.
Breach of Contract — Liability of Government — Non-Payment for Goods Supplied
Where a supplier delivers goods pursuant to a valid supply order endorsed by authorized government officers and the delivery is confirmed by those officers, the government is liable to pay the contract price even if internal administrative decisions later halted the funding for the programme.
Special Damages — Price of Goods Supplied — Evidence Required
Special damages for the price of goods supplied under a contract must be specifically proved by evidence showing the quantity supplied, the agreed unit price, and confirmation of delivery by authorized recipients.
Interest on Special Damages — Rate Determination — Inflation and Delayed Payment
In determining the rate of interest on special damages for delayed payment, the court may consider both inflation rates and a component for actual interest loss, awarding a composite rate that compensates for the diminution in value of money over time and the loss of use of funds.
General Damages — Inconvenience and Loss — Assessment Where Loss of Profits Not Proved
Where a plaintiff claims general damages for inconvenience and loss of profits but fails to adduce evidence to prove the quantum of lost profits, the court may award general damages for inconvenience alone based on the circumstances including the need to pursue the claim repeatedly and the denial of payment after valid supply.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (3)

  • Civil Appeal No. 25/96 in the matter of an application by Mustapha Ramathan for orders of certiorari, prohibition and injunction
  • Hilton v Steam Laundry (1946) 1 KB 61
  • Dharamshi v Karsan [1974] 1 EA 41

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Tibenderana Xavier v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 117 of 2008) [2012] UGCommC 3 (26 January 2012)
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.