Wakilii

Tile center Limited v Domus Aurea Limited (Civil Suit No. 836 of 2015)

High Court · [2021] UGCOMMC 116 · 2021 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 and recovery of debt
Decision
Judgment entered in favour of the Plaintiff with orders for payment of special damages, 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 the defendant breached its contract with the plaintiff by failing to pay for materials supplied and services rendered. The defendant's defence that windows were defective was rejected based on documentary evidence showing the Saudi Embassy approved the work. The plaintiff was entitled to recover USD 37,573.30 for aluminium and steel materials, UGX 20,782,456 for tiles, general damages of UGX 30,000,000, and interest at commercial rates on all sums awarded.

Outcome

Judgment entered in favour of the Plaintiff with orders for payment of special damages, general damages, interest, and costs

Facts

The plaintiff and defendant had a long-standing commercial relationship. In August 2013, the defendant contracted with the Saudi Arabian Embassy for construction works and engaged the plaintiff to supply and fit aluminium doors, windows, stainless steel, glass balustrades, and tiles. The parties agreed that the defendant would pay 50% advance on confirmation of order and 50% on delivery. The defendant made an initial payment of USD 20,000 on 20 August 2013. Between August 2013 and July 2014, the plaintiff supplied materials worth USD 80,573.29 and tiles worth UGX 21,931,576. The defendant paid USD 43,000 and UGX 1,149,120, leaving balances of USD 37,573.30 and UGX 20,782,456 unpaid. The defendant alleged that eight windows were defectively installed and leaked, causing complaints from the Saudi Embassy. However, correspondence from the defendant's manager dated 1 December 2015 confirmed that the Saudi Committee and Ambassador approved the work, with only minor painting flaws noted. The defendant failed to appear at trial despite proper service of hearing notices.

Issues

  1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to payment of USD 37,573.30.
  2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to payment of UGX 20,782,486.
  3. What remedies are available to the Plaintiff.

Orders

  • The Defendant to pay Plaintiff USD 37,573.30.
  • The Defendant to pay Plaintiff UGX 20,782,456.
  • Defendant to pay Plaintiff UGX 30,000,000 as general damages.
  • Interest on USD 37,573.30 at 10% per annum from 22 May 2015 till payment in full.
  • Interest on UGX 20,782,456 at 25% per annum from 22 May 2015 till payment in full.
  • Interest on general damages at 6% per annum from date of judgment.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Payment Terms — Failure to Pay for Goods Supplied and Services Rendered
Where parties agree that payment for goods and services shall be made in instalments and the purchaser fails to pay the balance after delivery and completion of work, the purchaser is in breach of contract and liable to pay the outstanding sum.
Evidence — Documentary Evidence — Contemporaneous Correspondence — Weight to be Attached
Contemporaneous correspondence between parties acknowledging outstanding payments and confirming approval of work done constitutes strong evidence rebutting allegations of defective performance and non-payment.
Civil Procedure — Ex Parte Hearing — Non-Appearance of Defendant — Proof of Service
Where a defendant has been properly served with hearing notices but fails to appear at trial without explanation, the court may proceed to hear the plaintiff's case ex parte and enter judgment based on the evidence adduced.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Assessment — Commercial Transactions
In assessing general damages for breach of a commercial contract, the court must consider the value of the subject matter, the economic inconvenience suffered by the aggrieved party, and the disruption to the plaintiff's business caused by the defendant's breach and subsequent denial of indebtedness.
Damages & Quantum — Interest — Commercial Transactions — Differential Rates
In commercial transactions, interest may be awarded at different rates depending on the currency of the debt and the nature of the transaction, with higher rates appropriate for local currency debts to reflect commercial realities and the period the plaintiff has been kept out of funds.

Cases cited (5)

  • Dharamshi v Karsam [1974] EA
  • Okello James v Attorney General (HCCS No. 574 of 2003)
  • Kibimba Rice Limited v Umar Salim (SCCA No. 17 of 1992)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Stephen Mabosi (SCCA No. 1 of 1991)
  • Harbutt's Plasticine Ltd v Wyne Tank & Pump Co. Ltd [1970] 1 Ch 447

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Tile center Limited v Domus Aurea Limited (Civil Suit No. 836 of 2015) [2021] UGCommC 116 (7 October 2021)
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.