Wakilii

Wakabi v Kantinti (Civil Suit No. 1245 of 2018)

High Court · [2022] UGHCLD 184 · 2022 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of land or refund of purchase price following breach of contract
Decision
Judgment entered for plaintiff with refund of purchase price, compensatory damages, 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 found that the defendant breached a contract to sell the plaintiff one acre of land after receiving partial payment of UGX 14,000,000. Given that specific performance was impractical due to subsequent subdivisions creating third-party interests, the court ordered the defendant to refund the purchase price paid and awarded compensatory damages of UGX 30,000,000 for breach of contract, with interest at 15% per annum from 6 June 2015 until full payment.

Outcome

Judgment entered for plaintiff with refund of purchase price, compensatory damages, interest, and costs

Facts

On 6 July 2015, the defendant agreed to sell the plaintiff one acre of land out of Block 769, Plot 992 at Kabubu Gayaza for UGX 24,000,000. The plaintiff paid UGX 14,000,000, with the balance of UGX 10,000,000 to be paid after the defendant subdivided the land and issued the plaintiff a certificate of title for the one acre. The defendant subdivided Plot 992 creating plots 2262, 2263, and 2264, but refused to deliver the plaintiff's one acre or issue him a title. The defendant also refused to refund the part payment. The plaintiff lodged a caveat on Plot 2264 on 3 May 2017. Summons were served on 28 August 2018, and substituted service was effected on 4 March 2021. The defendant never filed a defence. The plaintiff proceeded ex parte with leave granted on 11 May 2022.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover one acre of land from the defendant out of land formerly comprised in Block 769, plot 2264.
  2. What are the remedies available to the parties?

Orders

  • The defendant shall refund UGX 14,000,000 which the plaintiff had paid to him as part of the purchase price for the suit land.
  • The plaintiff is entitled to UGX 30,000,000 as compensatory damages for the breach of contract.
  • Interest at 15% per annum in respect of orders 1 and 2 above shall be payable to the plaintiff from 6th June 2015 till payment is made in full.
  • Costs of the suit are awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Effect of Non-Appearance — Constructive Admission of Allegations
A party who does not enter appearance and file a defence is deemed to have admitted the allegations in the plaint. Such admission is constructive.
Land & Property — Sale of Land — Equitable Interest — Effect of Part Payment
In a sale of immovable property, upon payment of a deposit, the property passes to the purchaser who acquires an equitable interest, and the vendor becomes a trustee in title.
Contract Law — Remedies for Breach — Specific Performance vs Compensation — When Specific Performance Unavailable
Where a party to a contract is in breach, the aggrieved party may obtain an order of specific performance requiring the breaching party to perform his promise. However, where specific performance may not serve its intended purpose due to practical considerations such as subsequent subdivisions creating third-party interests, it is fair and just for the court to issue orders for refund of money paid and damages for inconvenience caused by the breach.
Contract Law — Damages — General Damages — Assessment of Quantum
General damages are the natural and probable consequence of the defendant's act or omission and follow the ordinary course. They relate to all other terms of damages whether pecuniary or non-pecuniary, future loss, as well as damages for loss and suffering. In assessing general damages, the court considers alternative investments which the plaintiff could have benefited from if his money had been put to proper use, and the fact that money paid years earlier now has less value due to inflation and increase in the prevalent cost of land.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (11)

  • Smith B Kiito v Auto Electric Services Ltd (1951) 24 KLR 22
  • Asuman v Chief Registrar of Titles (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 706 of 2004)
  • Haji Asuman Mutekolnga v Equator Growers (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1995)
  • William Nasozi v DFCU Bank Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 1326 of 2000)
  • Ronald Nasibante v Smart Uganda Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 542 of 2006)
  • Semakula & another v Sentongo (Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2013)
  • Ismaet Jalfer Alibhai and others v Nandalal Harilvan Kanji & 61 others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 53 of 1995)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Deo Kigozi [2002] EA 293
  • Stork v Hutchison (1905) AC 515
  • Assist (U) Ltd v Norton Asphalt and Haulage & Anor (High Court Civil Suit No. 1297 of 1999)
  • Pinnacle Finance Limited v Kaddu Godfrey (High Court Civil Suit No. 94 of 2015)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Wakabi_v_Kantinti_(Civil_Suit_No._1245_of_2018)_[2022]_UGHCLD_184_(13_September_2022)
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.