Wakilii

Transtel Ltd & Anor v Mahi Computers & Appliances Ltd & Anor (Civil Suit No. 397 of 2015)

High Court · [2017] UGCOMMC 88 · 2017 Judgment for Plaintiffs AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of debt and release of detained goods, proceeding ex parte after substituted service
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiffs for the full liquidated sums claimed plus general damages calculated as contractual interest, with orders for immediate release of detained goods

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (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 1 time 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

Held that the first defendant breached both trading agreements by failing to pay for goods supplied by the two plaintiff companies. The plaintiffs were entitled to judgment for the liquidated sums of UGX 11,050,000 and UGX 152,297,575 respectively, together with contractual interest. The second defendant was ordered to release the plaintiffs' goods held in custody. General damages calculated as contractual interest on delayed payment were awarded: UGX 79,194,739 to the second plaintiff at the contractual rate of 2% per month, and UGX 5,746,000 to the first plaintiff at a reduced rate. The claim for aggravated damages failed for lack of evidence of malicious or high-handed conduct.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiffs for the full liquidated sums claimed plus general damages calculated as contractual interest, with orders for immediate release of detained goods

Facts

The first plaintiff entered into an agency agreement with the first defendant on 18 June 2014 and supplied goods worth UGX 11,050,000 between 21–29 April 2015. The second plaintiff entered into a similar agreement on 21 November 2013 and supplied goods worth UGX 152,297,575 between 1 January and 29 May 2015. The first defendant failed to pay for the goods supplied despite the contractual payment terms. When the plaintiffs sought to recover their goods (which remained their property under retention of title clauses), the second defendant, who was the landlord of the first defendant's premises at Plot 69, Kampala Road, locked the premises and denied the plaintiffs access. The first defendant closed business and its officials left the country. The plaintiffs served the defendants by substituted service after the first defendant closed shop. Interlocutory judgment was entered on 15 May 2017 and the matter proceeded to formal proof ex parte.

Issues

  1. Whether the first defendant breached the trading agreement with the first plaintiff by failing to pay for goods supplied.
  2. Whether the first defendant breached the agreement with the second plaintiff by failing to pay for goods supplied.
  3. Whether the second defendant is liable for denying the plaintiffs access to their goods.
  4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the remedies sought.

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the first plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of UGX 11,050,000.
  • Judgment entered for the second plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of UGX 152,297,575.
  • The second defendant to immediately release the first plaintiff's goods in its custody.
  • The first and second defendants to immediately release the second plaintiff's goods in their custody.
  • Interest at court rate awarded to the first and second plaintiffs on the liquidated amounts from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • General damages of UGX 5,746,000 awarded to the first plaintiff for withholding of money (interest at 2% per month for 26 months).
  • General damages of UGX 79,194,739 awarded to the second plaintiff for withholding of money (contractual interest at 2% per month for 26 months).
  • Interest at the rate of 12% per annum awarded on the general damages from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Claim for aggravated damages dismissed.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiffs.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Failure to Pay for Goods Supplied
A party who receives goods under an agency or supply agreement and fails to pay the agreed price within the stipulated time commits a breach of contract entitling the supplier to recover the debt.
Commercial Law — Sale of Goods — Retention of Title Clauses
Where a contract for the supply of goods contains a retention of title clause providing that property in the goods remains with the supplier until full payment, the supplier retains ownership rights despite delivery and may demand return of the goods if payment is not made.
Civil Procedure — Default Judgment — Liquidated Demand
Where a plaintiff claims a liquidated demand and the defendant fails to file a defence, the court may pass judgment for the sum claimed together with interest at the rate specified in the contract or, if no rate is specified, at 8% per year under Order 9 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, without requiring formal assessment.
Contract Law — Liquidated Damages — Contractual Interest as Pre-Estimate of Damage
Where parties have agreed to a contractual rate of interest for delayed payment as a genuine pre-estimate of loss, that rate represents the agreed damages and is recoverable without proof of actual loss, provided the rate is reasonable. The plaintiff cannot claim more than the contractually stipulated amount.
Contract Law — Damages — Assessment of Reasonable Interest Rate
Where a contractual interest rate is manifestly excessive (such as 60% per annum), the court may reduce it to a reasonable commercial rate reflecting the rate at which the plaintiff would have had to borrow money to replace that which was withheld, applying the principle of restitutio in integrum.
Tort Law — Aggravated Damages — Requirement for Malice or High-Handed Conduct
Aggravated damages are compensatory in nature and may be awarded where the defendant's motives, conduct, or manner of committing the wrong have caused the plaintiff mental distress or injury to dignity through malevolent, spiteful, high-handed, malicious, or insulting behaviour. Mere breach of contract or detention of goods without evidence of such conduct does not attract aggravated damages.
Civil Procedure — Default Proceedings — Deemed Admission of Facts
Under Order 8 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, every allegation of fact in the plaint which is not denied specifically or by necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted, is taken to be admitted when the defendant fails to file a defence, except as against persons under disability.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (10)

  • Nakawa Trading Co. Ltd v Coffee Marketing Board [1994] 11 KALR 15
  • Obongo v Municipal Council of Kisumu [1971] 1 EA 91
  • Premchandra Shenoi and Another v Maximov Oleg Petrovich (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2003)
  • SIETCO vs. NOBLE BULDERS (U) Ltd
  • Uganda Baati v Patrick Kalema (Civil Suit No. 126 of 2010)
  • Abbey Panel & Sheet Metal Co Ltd vs. Barson Products (a firm) [1947] 2 All ER 809
  • Tate & Lyle Food and Distribution Ltd vs. Greater London Council and another [1981] 3 All ER 716
  • Riches vs. Westminster Bank Ltd [1947] 1 All ER 469 HL
  • Suisse Atlantique Société D'armement Maritime S A vs. N V Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale [1966] 2 All ER 61
  • Obongo and Another v Municipal Council of Kisumu [1971] 1 EA 91

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

Transtel Ltd & Anor v Mahi Computers & Appliances Ltd & Anor (Civil Suit No. 397 of 2015) [2017] UGCommC 88 (6 September 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.