Wakilii

Waiglobe (U) Limited v Sai Beverages Limited (CIVIL SUIT No. 0016 OF 2017)

High Court · [2017] UGHCCD 172 · 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 and recovery of money heard on formal proof after defendant failed to file defence
Decision
Judgment entered for plaintiff with recovery of money paid plus damages and interest

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 1 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.

Good law Followed in 1 case and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. Citations fading — 6 citing cases on record, 3 in the most recent three data years. 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

Where a defendant fails to deliver products after receiving payment under a distributorship agreement and does not defend the suit, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the sum paid as special damages plus general damages calculated as interest the money would have attracted during the period of breach. The court applied a rate of 20% per annum for fifteen months as the measure of profit lost, awarding UGX 5,250,000 in general damages plus the principal sum.

Outcome

Judgment entered for plaintiff with recovery of money paid plus damages and interest

Facts

In September 2016, the plaintiff and defendant entered into a distributorship agreement by email exchange whereby the plaintiff would distribute the defendant's Fizzy soda products in Arua, Adjumani and Moyo districts. The plaintiff paid UGX 21,000,000 by bank transfer on 1 September 2016, receipt of which the defendant confirmed by email dated 9 September 2016. The defendant failed to supply any products despite reminders. The defendant issued two cheques for UGX 11,000,000 each on 24 and 26 September 2016, both of which were dishonoured upon presentation. The plaintiff demanded refund. The defendant was served with summons on 3 April 2017 but failed to file any defence. Interlocutory judgment was entered on 23 May 2017 and the matter proceeded to formal proof of damages.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an award of general damages for breach of contract.

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the plaintiff against the defendant.
  • Special damages of UGX 21,000,000 awarded.
  • General damages of UGX 5,250,000 awarded.
  • Interest at 8% per annum on both special and general damages from date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Formal Proof — Burden of Proof Where Defendant Defaults
Even where a case proceeds on formal proof only after the defendant fails to file a defence, the plaintiff still bears the burden of proving the case on the balance of probabilities.
Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Measure of Damages — Restitutio in Integrum
Where a party sustains loss by reason of breach of contract, damages are awarded to place the innocent party, so far as money can do it, in the same situation with respect to damages as if the contract had been performed, following the principle of restitutio in integrum.
Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Remoteness of Damage
For loss arising from breach of contract to be recoverable, it must be such as the party in breach should reasonably have contemplated as not unlikely to result, applying the tests in Hadley v Baxendale: whether the damages arise naturally from the breach or were reasonably contemplated by both parties as a probable result of the breach.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Assessment Where Money Advanced Not Refunded
Where a defendant fails to deliver products for money advanced and does not refund the money, general damages may be assessed as interest the money would have attracted during the period of breach, calculated by reference to rates of interest and inflation that would reflect the profit lost from denial of use of the money.
Damages & Quantum — Interest on Damages — Discretionary Award Under Section 26(1) Civil Procedure Act
Under section 26(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, where interest was not agreed by the parties, the court should award interest that is just and reasonable, taking into account prevailing inflation and currency depreciation to insulate the plaintiff against economic vagaries.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (11)

  • Kirugi and Another v Kabiya and Three Others [1987] KLR 347
  • The Rio Claro [1987] 2 Lloyd's Rep 173
  • Robinson v Harman (1848) 1 Exch 850
  • Kibimba Rice Ltd v Umar Salim (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1992)
  • East Ham BC v Bernard Sunley & Sons Ltd [1966] AC 406
  • Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Ex 341
  • Neville v London Express Newspaper Ltd [1919] AC 368
  • Johnson v Agnew [1979] 2 WLR 487
  • Sowah v Bank for Housing & Construction [1982-83] 2 GLR 1324
  • Mohanlal Kakubhai Radia v Warid Telecom Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 234 of 2011)
  • Kinyera v The Management Committee of Laroo Boarding Primary School (High Court Civil Suit No. 099 of 2013)

Cases citing this judgment (5)

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.

Waiglobe (U) Limited v Sai Beverages Limited (CIVIL SUIT No. 0016 OF 2017) [2017] UGHCCD 172 (14 December 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.