Wakilii

Uraza Saidi and Another v Soni M. (Civil Suit 709 of 2003)

High Court · [2005] UGCOMMC 87 · 2005 Judgment for Plaintiffs AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of balance of purchase price for gemstones sold under contract
Decision
Judgment entered for plaintiffs for US$ 5,900 special damages and Ug. Shs. 2,500,000 general damages, with 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 initial agreement to sell gemstones at US$ 7,400 was conditional on the stones being sold at that price in India. A purported second agreement reducing the price to Shs. 3,000,000 was void ab initio on the defence of non est factum, as the illiterate plaintiff did not understand its true nature. On quantum meruit, the defendant must pay the agreed price for gemstones retained and not returned, less payments already made.

Outcome

Judgment entered for plaintiffs for US$ 5,900 special damages and Ug. Shs. 2,500,000 general damages, with interest and costs

Facts

The plaintiffs, gemstone dealers from Karamoja, agreed in writing to sell gemstones (Ruby and Blue Sapphire) to the defendant, a jeweller, for US$ 7,400, to be sold in India. They received US$ 300 as advance payment. The agreement provided that if the stones were not sold in India at that price, they would be returned and the advance refunded. The defendant took the stones to India but did not return them. Instead, he presented a second agreement reducing the price to Ug. Shs. 3,000,000. The first plaintiff, who was illiterate and did not understand English, signed this document believing it to be a receipt for a partial payment of Shs. 1,000,000. The plaintiffs claimed the balance of US$ 6,600 under the original agreement. The defendant admitted owing Shs. 1,200,000 and judgment on admission was entered for that amount, with the balance put to trial.

Issues

  1. Whether the price of US$ 7,400 was agreed upon or not.
  2. Whether or not there was a 2nd agreement dated 18th July 2003 and if so, what impact did it have on the 1st agreement dated 21st June 2003.
  3. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to the prayers.

Orders

  • Judgment for the plaintiffs.
  • Special damages of US$ 5,900 awarded.
  • General damages of Ug. Shs. 2,500,000 awarded.
  • Interest on the decretal sum at 8% per annum from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiffs.

Rules and key headnotes

Condition Precedent — Sale of Goods — Payment Dependent on Resale at Agreed Price
Where parties agree to a sale price subject to the goods being resold at that price in a specified market, the confirmation of that price in the market is a condition precedent to the sealing of the contract price, and until that condition is fulfilled there is no binding contract at that price.
Non Est Factum — Illiterate Parties — Mistake as to Nature of Document
The defence of non est factum is available to a signatory who, being illiterate and unable to read the language of the document, signs under a substantial mistake as to the character and nature of the document (not merely as to its contents), particularly where the mistake is fundamental or very substantial and the document was not properly explained to the signatory.
Illiterate Parties — Duty to Explain and Translate Documents — Weight of Evidence
In determining whether an illiterate party understood the nature of a document signed, the court will take into account the degree of literacy of the parties, the care and clarity with which the document was read out and explained, the circumstances in which it was executed, and the course of events leading up to and following execution.
Quantum Meruit — Retention of Goods — Failure to Return Goods Under Conditional Contract
Where a seller transfers goods under a contract subject to a condition precedent that is not fulfilled, and the buyer retains the goods without returning them as agreed, the buyer must pay the seller on a quantum meruit basis, valued at the price specified in the original agreement for the goods.
Protection of Illiterates Act — Effect of Non-Compliance — Validity of Contract
Non-compliance with section 3 of the Protection of Illiterates Act (failure to write full name and address on a document written for an illiterate) does not itself invalidate the document, but exposes the writer to a criminal penalty; however, non-compliance may be relevant evidence in assessing whether the illiterate understood the document and whether the defence of non est factum is made out.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Protection of Illiterates Act Cap 78 s.1(b)
  • Protection of Illiterates Act Cap 78 s.2
  • Protection of Illiterates Act Cap 78 s.3
  • Protection of Illiterates Act Cap 78 s.4
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 rule 1

Cases cited (7)

  • Folomera Nalongo v Luwero Town Council (High Court Civil Suit No. 303 of 1993)
  • Lee Partner & Another Vs. Izzet & Other [1972] All ER 800
  • Locket Vs. Norman Wright [1952] Ch 33
  • James Kakiojra Vs. Sezi Bujasi [1982] HCB 148
  • Curtis Vs. Chemical Clearing Co [1951] I KB 805
  • The Director, Jinnah's Company Ltd Vs. Francis Owino Civ. App. 22-D-67 (Tanzania)
  • Saunders Vs. Anglia Building Society [1971] AC 1004

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uraza Saidi and Another v Soni M. (Civil Suit 709 of 2003) [2005] UGCommC 87 (24 February 2005)
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.