Wakilii

Wendy v Mushra Travel Agency Limited and Another (Civil Suit 680 of 2019)

High Court · [2023] UGCOMMC 100 · 2023 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, breach of statutory duty, and negligence
Decision
Judgment entered for the Plaintiff against both Defendants with declarations, 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

Held that the 1st Defendant breached its contract with the Plaintiff by receiving USD 17,365 for a luxury tour package but failing to provide the contracted services. The 2nd Defendant breached its statutory duty under the Uganda Tourism Act 2008 to enforce and monitor standards in the tourism sector by failing to inspect, register, and license tour operators for the relevant years. The 2nd Defendant is liable in negligence for failing to perform its statutory obligations, which proximately caused damage to the Plaintiff. Plaintiff awarded USD 17,365 in special damages and UGX 50,000,000 in general damages.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the Plaintiff against both Defendants with declarations, damages, interest, and costs

Facts

In October 2017, the Plaintiff contacted the 1st Defendant, a tour operator, for a 14-day luxury tour package for four adults in Uganda scheduled for January 2019. The Plaintiff, who was disabled with arthritis, paid USD 17,365 for the package, which included top-range accommodation, gorilla trekking permits, and transport. The 1st Defendant assured the Plaintiff that all bookings were secured. Upon arrival in Uganda on 17 January 2019, the Plaintiff and her family were not provided with the promised accommodation or services and incurred additional expenses totaling USD 12,111 for accommodation and tour guide services. The Plaintiff reported the matter to the 2nd Defendant and police. The 1st Defendant failed to file a defence. Evidence showed the 2nd Defendant had not issued licenses to tour operators for 2017-2019 and took no action against the 1st Defendant until April 2023.

Issues

  1. Whether the 1st Defendant breached its contract with the Plaintiff?
  2. Whether the 2nd Defendant breached its statutory duties to the Plaintiff?
  3. Whether the 2nd Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff in negligence?
  4. What are the available remedies?

Orders

  • A declaration that the 1st Defendant breached the contract.
  • A declaration that the 2nd Defendant breached its statutory duties to the Plaintiff.
  • A declaration that the 2nd Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff in negligence.
  • The Plaintiff is entitled to USD 17,365 (United States Dollars Seventeen Thousand Three Hundred Sixty Five) from the 1st Defendant.
  • General damages of UGX 50,000,000 (Uganda Shillings Fifty Million only).
  • Interest on the principal sum at the rate of 20% per annum from the date of filing this suit until payment in full.
  • Interest on general damages at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Failure to Provide Contracted Services
A breach of contract occurs where a party fails to perform obligations undertaken under the contract. Where a tour operator receives payment for tour services but fails to provide those services, this constitutes breach of contract entitling the innocent party to damages.
Administrative Law — Breach of Statutory Duty — Elements and Liability
To establish breach of statutory duty, a claimant must prove: (1) the duty is owed to the claimant; (2) the injury is of the kind the statute is intended to prevent; (3) the defendant breached its statutory obligation; and (4) the breach caused the damage.
Administrative Law — Uganda Tourism Act — Duty to License and Monitor Tour Operators
The Uganda Tourism Act 2008 imposes a statutory duty on the Uganda Tourism Board to enforce and monitor standards in the tourism sector and to inspect, register, license, and classify tourist facilities and services. Failure to license tour operators and enforce standards constitutes breach of statutory duty.
Tort Law — Negligence — Liability of Public Bodies for Statutory Failures
A public authority exercising statutory powers can be held liable in negligence where it owes a statutory duty to a person, omits to perform that duty, and damage is occasioned to the claimant as a result. The existence of statutory duty is determined by examining the relevant legislation.
Tort Law — Negligence — Foreseeability and Proximity of Damage
Where a regulatory authority fails to fulfill its duties to enforce and monitor standards in the tourism sector, thereby creating an enabling environment for unscrupulous operators to defraud tourists, the loss occasioned is foreseeable and proximate to the authority's dereliction of duty.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Assessment for Breach of Contract and Negligence
In assessing general damages for breach of contract and negligence, the court considers the value of the subject matter, the economic inconvenience suffered by the plaintiff, and the nature and extent of the injury. General damages compensate for pain, suffering, inconvenience, and anticipated future loss.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (15)

  • Behange v School Outfitters (U) Ltd (Court of Appeal)
  • Barclays Bank of Uganda Limited v Howard Bakojja (High Court Civil Suit No. 53 of 2011)
  • Nakawa Trading Co. Ltd v Coffee Marketing Board (High Court Civil Suit No. 137 of 1991)
  • United Building Services Limited v Yafesi Muzira T/A Quickset Builders and Co (High Court Civil Suit No. 154 of 2005)
  • Jovelyn Barugahare v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 28 of 1993)
  • The Center for Health Human Rights and Development & 4 others v Nakaseke District Local Administration (High Court Civil Suit No. 111 of 2012)
  • Jane Akello v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 9 of 2009)
  • Anns Vs Merton London Borough Council [1977] ABC.LR 05/12
  • Anns Vs Merton London Borough Council [1977]2 ALLER 492
  • Masaka Municipal Council v Takaya Frank (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 173 of 2015)
  • Storms Vs Hutchinson [1905] A.C 515
  • Crown Beverages Ltd v Sendu Edward (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2005)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi
  • Crescent Transportation Co Ltd v Bin Technical Services Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2000)
  • Uganda Development Bank v Muganga Construction Co. Ltd

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Wendy v Mushra Travel Agency Limited and Another (Civil Suit 680 of 2019) [2023] UGCommC 100 (21 September 2023)
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.