Wakilii

Unique Enterprises (u) Ltd v Anil Damani (HCT-05-CV-CS-039-2005 ) (HCT-05-CV-CS-039-2005)

High Court · [2006] UGHC 76 · 2006 Judgment for Defendant on Counterclaim AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Assessment of damages following entry of interlocutory judgment on counterclaim due to plaintiff's failure to file reply
Decision
Judgment entered for defendant on counterclaim with 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 court assessed damages in favour of the defendant on his counterclaim arising from unpaid loans advanced to the plaintiff for beer distribution. Special damages of UGX 136,152,237 were awarded representing the balance after partial recovery through depot management. General damages of UGX 2,000,000 were awarded for humiliation suffered when presenting dishonoured cheques and potential loss of business expansion.

Outcome

Judgment entered for defendant on counterclaim with damages, interest and costs awarded

Facts

The defendant's company Dembe Trading Enterprises Ltd and the plaintiff both distributed Uganda Breweries products in different regions. The plaintiff's Managing Director sought financial assistance from the defendant to replenish stock. The defendant arranged for Barclays Bank to issue two bank drafts totalling UGX 282,500,000 payable to Uganda Breweries on the plaintiff's behalf. The plaintiff provided post-dated cheques as security. Neither cheque was honoured - one had unacceptable alterations and payment on the other was stopped by the plaintiff. An arrangement was made for the defendant's agent to manage the plaintiff's depot at Ishaka to recoup the debt, reducing the amount owed to UGX 136,152,237. The arrangement ended prematurely when beer supply to that depot ceased at the plaintiff's request. The plaintiff failed to file a reply to the counterclaim and later indicated it was no longer pursuing the suit. Interlocutory judgment was entered and the matter proceeded to assessment of damages.

Issues

  1. What quantum of special damages is owing to the defendant on the counterclaim for unpaid monies advanced to the plaintiff for beer stock.
  2. What quantum of general damages should be awarded for the defendant's trouble in presenting dishonoured cheques and loss of business opportunity.

Orders

  • Judgment for the defendant/applicant on the counterclaim.
  • Special damages of UGX 136,152,237 awarded to the defendant.
  • General damages of UGX 2,000,000 awarded to the defendant.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the defendant.
  • Interest at 20% per annum on special damages from date of filing until full payment.
  • Interest at 20% per annum on general damages and costs from date of judgment until full payment.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Failure to Reply to Counterclaim — Effect
Failure to file a reply to a counterclaim is deemed an admission of the statement of facts contained in the counterclaim.
Damages & Quantum — Special Damages — Pleading and Proof
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved.
Contract Law — Loan Agreements — Security by Post-Dated Cheque — Dishonour
Where a debtor provides post-dated cheques as security for loans advanced and those cheques are dishonoured, the creditor is entitled to recover the outstanding debt through alternative arrangements or legal action.

Cases cited (2)

  • James Katuku and 8 Others v Kalimbagiza [1987] HCB 75
  • Ssali v Bwesigye [1978] HCB 188

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Unique Enterprises (u) Ltd v Anil Damani (HCT-05-CV-CS-039-2005 ) (HCT-05-CV-CS-039-2005) [2006] UGHC 76 (22 February 2006)
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.