Wakilii

Wakiso Cargo Transporters Co Ltd v Wakiso District Local Government Council & Anor (HCT-00-CC-CS 70 of 2004)

High Court · [2006] UGCOMMC 32 · 2006 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for breach of contract and damages
Decision
Plaintiff succeeded on liability against Defendant No. 1 for breach of contract but recovered no damages. Claim against Defendant No. 2 dismissed for lack of privity. Plaintiff awarded nominal 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 Attorney General had no privity of contract with the plaintiff and dismissed the claim against it. The contract was not frustrated but rather unlawfully breached by Wakiso District Local Government Council, which terminated it prematurely without lawful justification. However, the plaintiff failed to prove its claim for damages as it did not properly plead or prove loss of net profits, instead claiming only expenses incurred. The claim for exemplary damages for breach of contract was also rejected as contrary to established law. The plaintiff succeeded on liability but recovered no damages, receiving only nominal costs.

Outcome

Plaintiff succeeded on liability against Defendant No. 1 for breach of contract but recovered no damages. Claim against Defendant No. 2 dismissed for lack of privity. Plaintiff awarded nominal costs.

Facts

Wakiso Cargo Transporters Co Ltd entered into a written agreement with Wakiso District Local Government Council on 3 September 2003 to manage Kasenyi landing site until June 2004, paying Shs 5,000,000 per month. The plaintiff paid Shs 10,000,000 upfront for two months, recruited 21 staff on one-year contracts, hired guards, purchased furniture, equipment, and office tools, and hired office premises and a pick-up vehicle. The plaintiff faced initial resistance from the former managers but eventually took possession approximately one week before termination. On 24 October 2003, the defendant terminated the contract by letter, citing a presidential directive to hand over management to Mukoni Farmers Ltd, who claimed ownership of the landing site. The plaintiff sued for breach of contract claiming special damages of Shs 200,000,000, general damages, and exemplary damages. The defendant pleaded frustration of contract by presidential directive and, in the alternative, failure to prove damages. Defendant No. 2 (Attorney General) pleaded no cause of action.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendants jointly and severally unlawfully terminated the plaintiff's contract.
  2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to special, general, and punitive damages.
  3. Whether there was privity of contract between the plaintiff and the Attorney General (Defendant No. 2).
  4. Whether the contract was frustrated by a presidential directive.

Orders

  • Suit against Defendant No. 2 (Attorney General) dismissed.
  • Contract unlawfully terminated or breached by Defendant No. 1.
  • Claim for special damages dismissed for failure to properly plead and prove loss.
  • Claim for exemplary damages dismissed as unavailable for breach of contract.
  • Plaintiff awarded one quarter of its costs for these proceedings.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Privity of Contract — Third Party Liability for Breach
A person who is not a party to a contract cannot be sued for breach of that contract, as only parties to a contract can sue or be sued under it, save for certain recognised exceptions.
Contract Law — Frustration — Presidential Directive as Intervening Event
A contract is not frustrated where the party seeking to rely on frustration handed over property to another claimant without defending its own title, particularly where that party's own conduct or failure to secure proper title caused the impossibility of performance. Events resulting from a party's own fault cannot amount to frustration.
Contract Law — Damages — Measure of Damages for Breach
Damages for breach of contract are compensatory and measured by the plaintiff's actual loss. The proper measure is the net profits lost as a result of the breach, being the gross income the plaintiff would have earned less the expenses that would have been incurred in earning that income, not the expenses alone.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Special Damages Must Be Specifically Pleaded and Proved
To sustain a claim for special damages, the plaintiff must specifically plead the claim by setting out particularised items in the plaint, and must strictly prove each item. A claim stating only a lump sum without particulars is insufficient to found a claim for special damages.
Contract Law — Damages — Exemplary Damages Not Available for Breach of Contract
Exemplary damages are generally not available as a remedy for breach of contract under Ugandan law.

Cases cited (8)

  • Kayanja v New India Assurance Company Ltd [1968] EA 295
  • Davis Contractors Ltd v Fareham Urban District Council [1956] 1 All ER 145
  • Sam Engola v Christine Nabitalo (HCCS No. 1237 of 1987)
  • Attorney General v Blake [1998] 1 All ER 376
  • Livingstone v Rawyards Coal Co (1880) 5 App Cas 25
  • Christopher Kiggundu and Another v Uganda Transport Co (1975) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1993)
  • John Nagenda v Sabena Belgian World Airline (HCCS No. 1148 of 1988)
  • Esso Standard (U) Ltd v Semu Amanu Opio (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1993)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Wakiso Cargo Transporters Co Ltd v Wakiso District Local Government Council & Anor (HCT-00-CC-CS 70 of 2004) [2006] UGCommC 32 (25 October 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.