Wakilii

Tuusah v Kamoga (Civil Suit No 23 of 2015)

High Court · [2023] UGHC 18 · 2023 Judgment for Plaintiff; Counterclaim Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of money under Order 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules, with counterclaim for damages and refund
Decision
Plaintiff awarded UGX 7,265,000 for outstanding balance; defendant awarded UGX 8,000,000 general damages on counterclaim; each party to bear own 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

Held that the defendant owed the plaintiff UGX 7,265,000 being the outstanding balance on a motor vehicle sale agreement after reconciling payments and offsetting agreed repair costs. The plaintiff acted fraudulently by representing that the vehicle was free from encumbrances and that he held the original logbook when he had not cleared the balance due to the original owner, Trust Dealers International Co. Ltd. The defendant was awarded general damages of UGX 8,000,000 for inconvenience and costs incurred due to the plaintiff's fraudulent conduct. Each party to bear own costs.

Outcome

Plaintiff awarded UGX 7,265,000 for outstanding balance; defendant awarded UGX 8,000,000 general damages on counterclaim; each party to bear own costs

Facts

On 9 February 2015, the plaintiff sold motor vehicle UAU 489F to the defendant for UGX 65,000,000. The defendant paid UGX 5,000,000 at execution and was to pay the balance by 27 February 2015. The plaintiff had purchased the vehicle from Trust Dealers International Co. Ltd for UGX 118,000,000, paying only UGX 70,000,000 and leaving a balance outstanding. The defendant made various payments totaling approximately UGX 67,000,000 through bank deposits, payments to Trust Dealers, and mobile money transfers. On 3 December 2015, the parties signed a memorandum of understanding acknowledging an outstanding balance of UGX 25,230,000. The vehicle was impounded by Trust Dealers due to the plaintiff's unpaid balance. The defendant incurred costs of UGX 33,500,000 to redeem the vehicle and UGX 3,860,000 for repairs. The plaintiff represented in the sale agreement that the vehicle was free from encumbrances and that he held the original logbook, which was false.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant is still indebted to the plaintiff under the sale agreement.
  2. Whether the plaintiff was fraudulent in selling the vehicle to the defendant.
  3. Whether the parties are entitled to the reliefs sought.

Orders

  • The defendant Kamoga Muhammadi shall pay to the plaintiff Tuusah Simon a sum of UGX 7,265,000 being the outstanding balance on the contract of sale of Motor Vehicle Reg. No. UAU 489F.
  • The plaintiff/counter defendant Tuusah Simon shall pay general damages of UGX 8,000,000 to the defendant/counter claimant Kamoga Muhammadi.
  • Each party shall bear their own costs of the suit as well as the counter-claim.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Documentary Evidence — Parol Evidence Rule — Admissibility of Oral Evidence to Vary Written Contract
Where parties have reduced their agreement to writing, neither party may adduce evidence to contradict, add to, vary, or subtract from the written terms except where fraud, duress, illegality, lack of consideration, or lack of capacity is shown, or where oral evidence relates to a separate agreement on a matter on which the document is silent and which is not inconsistent with its terms, or where oral evidence establishes a condition precedent to the contract.
Contract Law — Sale of Goods — Condition Precedent — Repairs and Testing
Where parties agree that testing and repair of goods shall be carried out before sale and that the costs thereof shall be offset from the purchase price, such testing and repair constitutes a condition precedent to the sale and the costs must be deducted from the agreed consideration.
Contract Law — Fraud — False Representation — Sale of Goods Subject to Third Party Claims
A seller acts fraudulently where he represents that goods are free from encumbrances and that he has good title when he knows that he has not cleared the balance due to the original owner and that the original owner has a claim over the goods for unpaid balance. Such false representation made with full knowledge that it is false and acted upon by the purchaser amounts to fraud.
Contract Law — Fraud — Duty of Disclosure — Original Logbook
Where a seller represents by implication that he has an original logbook and will keep custody of it until full payment, but knows that he does not have the original logbook because he has not cleared the balance due to the original owner, the duty is on the seller to disclose this fact to the purchaser. Failure to disclose amounts to fraud.
Contract Law — Contracts Act 2010 s.16(2) — Voidability — Means of Discovering Truth
Section 16(2) of the Contracts Act 2010, which provides that a contract is not voidable where the party whose consent was obtained by misrepresentation or fraud had the means of discovering the truth with ordinary diligence, applies only where a party seeks to challenge the validity of a contract on the ground that it was arrived at through fraud. It does not preclude a finding that a party acted fraudulently in entering into the contract.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Fraud — Indemnity for Third Party Claims
Where a seller acts fraudulently and a purchaser incurs expenses including redeeming goods that have been impounded by a third party due to the seller's failure to clear his indebtedness, the purchaser is entitled to recover such costs as general damages. Where the parties agreed that the seller shall indemnify the purchaser for all costs and expenses incurred in the event of a third party claim of interest, the purchaser is entitled to damages for inconvenience and costs incurred.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (7)

  • Golf View Inn (U) Ltd v Barclays Bank (U) Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 358 of 2009)
  • Interfreight Forwarders (U) Ltd Vs. East African Development Bank (1990-1992) 1 E.A 117 (SC)
  • Fredrick Zaabwe Vs. Orient Bank & 5 Ors KALR (2007) 220
  • Fredrick Zaabwe v Orient Bank & 5 Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006)
  • Derry Vs. Peek (1889) 14 App Cas 337
  • Sine Pay (U) Ltd v Sarah Kagoro & Another (Civil Suit No. 548 of 2004)
  • Luzinda v Ssekamatte & 3 Others (Civil Suit No. 366 of 2017)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Tuusah v Kamoga (Civil Suit No 23 of 2015) 2023 UGHC 18 (23 January 2023)
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.