Wakilii

Tweyongyere Kamwesingire Flavia and Another v Tukundane Francis (Civil Suit No. 125 of 2015)

High Court · [2017] UGCOMMC 263 · 2017 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 arising from failed land sale agreement
Decision
Judgment entered for plaintiffs with interest at court rate, general damages of UGX 5 million, 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

Court awarded interest at the court rate from filing of suit till payment in full, finding 14% per annum prayed for too high. General damages reduced from UGX 20 million claimed to UGX 5 million granted for deprivation of money and inconvenience. Costs awarded to plaintiffs as defendant's actions gave rise to the suit and refund attempts only commenced after filing.

Outcome

Judgment entered for plaintiffs with interest at court rate, general damages of UGX 5 million, and costs

Facts

On 14 March 2014, defendant agreed to sell plaintiffs 10 acres out of Block 592-596 Plot 27, Ziba Busiro for UGX 95 million. Defendant was to provide vacant possession upon receiving second instalment of UGX 20 million. Plaintiffs paid UGX 90 million by 3 May 2014. Defendant failed to provide vacant possession. Defendant was not the registered proprietor but plaintiffs accepted to transact on understanding that title would transfer once defendant acquired it. After suit filed on 4 March 2014, defendant deposited UGX 70 million on 22 May 2015 and UGX 6 million on 23 September 2016. On 21 November 2016, defendant admitted liability for UGX 90 million claim and judgment on admission was entered for balance of UGX 14 million.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to interest on the decretal sum and at what rate.
  2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to general damages for breach of contract.
  3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to costs of the suit.

Orders

  • Interest at the court rate awarded from the date of filing suit until payment in full.
  • General damages of UGX 5,000,000 awarded to the plaintiffs.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiffs.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Assessment of Interest
Award of interest is discretionary and the basis is that the defendant has kept the plaintiff out of his money and has had the use of it himself, so ought to compensate the plaintiff accordingly. A just and reasonable rate should keep the awarded amount cushioned against inflation and depreciation of currency.
Contract Law — Breach of Contract — General Damages
In breach of contract, damages should be such as may fairly and reasonably be considered as arising naturally from such breach according to the usual course of things, or such as may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of both parties at the time they made the contract as the probable result of the breach.
Damages & Quantum — Assessment Principles — Nature of Damages
Damages are fundamentally compensatory, not punitive. Damages should not be too high or too low with regard to the circumstances of a particular case and should not be awarded from sentimental considerations. Whenever an injury is done to a right, the law will presume damage.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Costs Follow the Event
Under Civil Procedure Act section 27(2), costs of any action shall follow the event unless the court for good reason otherwise orders. For the court to order otherwise, good reason must be shown why costs should not follow the event.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (11)

  • Kazinga Channel Office World Ltd v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 276 of 2008)
  • Fulgensio Semako v Edirisa Ssebugwawo (1979) HCB 15
  • Henry Dhushime v S.M Tours and Travel Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 23 of 1997)
  • Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Co. v West End Distributors Ltd (No. 2) [1970] EA 469
  • National Medical Stores v Peniuines Ltd (High Court Civil Appeal No. 29 of 2012)
  • Harbutts Plasticine Ltd v Wayne Tank & Pump Co. Ltd [1970] 1 Ch B 447
  • Zimbiba v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 109 of 2011)
  • Hadley v Baxendale [1854] 9 Exch. 341
  • Akankwasa v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 0202 of 2013)
  • Groffin East Africa Fund LLC v Investec Uganda Ltd & 2 Ors (Civil Suit No. 374 of 2011)
  • Dewan Nanji v Handus Kalidas Dawda (1949) 15 EACA 35

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Tweyongyere Kamwesingire Flavia and Another v Tukundane Francis (Civil Suit No. 125 of 2015) [2017] UGCommC 263 (12 January 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.