The Commercial Case Law Index is a collection of judgments from African countries on topics relating to commercial legal practice. The collection aims to provide a snapshot of commercial legal practice in a country, rather than present solely traditionally "reportable" cases. The index currently covers 400 judgments from Uganda, Tanzania, Nigeria, Ghana and South Africa.
Get started on finding judgments that are relevant to you by browsing the topic list on the left of the screen. Click the arrows next to the topic names to reveal a detailed list of sub-topics. Most judgments are accompanied by a short summary written by subject-matter expert postgraduate students from the University of Cape Town.
The respondent sold a car to a man who paid half price and took the vehicle
leaving the original registration book with the respondent. The new buyer on
the same day sold the car to the appellant. The respondent bought a suit
against the appellant and his predecessor in title for orders of specific
performance of the sale agreement, damages, interest and costs of the suit.
The trial court entered judgment for the respondent and the appellant’s
appeal to the court of appeal was dismissed hence this appeal.
The first issue was whether the appellate court erred in law and in fact to conclude that the respondent could not be sued. The court observed a difference in the extent of immunity accorded in the domestic act and that granted in the Eastern and Southern African Trade and Development Bank Charter of the Preferential Trade Area (PTA) for Eastern and Southern African States (the charter) and Eastern and Southern African Trade and Development Bank Act (the act), with the charter providing for absolute immunity whilst the act offered functional immunity. It reasoned that the intention of the act is to govern the relationship between Uganda and the respondent. Applying the ejusdem generis rule (that a general term describing a list of specific terms denotes other things that are like the specific elements) to interpret the objectives of the act, the court concluded that immunity was not intended to extend to third party relationships as these are not covered by the functionality principle underpinning the act. The court held the appellate court erred in its finding and instead concluded against immunity.
The second question was whether it was a procedural requirement to obtain a waiver before instituting suit against the respondent. Reiterating the functionality basis of the respondent’s immunity and the fact that it did not extent to suits from third parties for contractual breach, the court reasoned that the waiver requirement was inapplicable and unnecessary. It thus concluded that there was no need to obtain a waiver before commencing suit and allowed the appeal.
The court considered whether; the land occupied by the respondent was registered land, the grant of the lease was fraudulent, and estoppel is applicable.
The court held that s 31(1) of the Land Act gives security of tenure to a tenant on registered land. Moreso, the implications of the abolitions of statutory leases in terms of art 237 of the Constitution remains a grey area. The court also held that security of tenure protects a bona fide occupant 's interest. Also, under s 176 of the Registration of Titles Act, a registered proprietor is protected against ejectment except in certain cases including fraud. Further, to procure registration of title to defeat an unregistered interest amounts to fraud. The court also held that registration tainted with fraud does not give rise to the doctrine of estoppel.
The court found that respondent must continue occupation because they were in undisturbed possession and occupation before the 1995 Constitution. The abolition of statutory leases did not automatically extinguish such right. Also found that fraud was attributable to appellants because the grant and registration of suit land in the name of the second appellant was intended to defeat the unregistered interest of the respondent.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal with costs. Further ordered the first appellant to give due consideration to the respondent's application for a lease over the suit land including giving it a priority in the granting of the lease.
The matter involved a dispute as to whether there was a contract and in effect breach of contract.
The main issue before the court was whether there was a contract for sale of goods and in consequence whether there was breach. Citing trite law that there is no contract if there is no agreement on the essential terms of contract, the court established that the alleged contract did not mention the amounts allegedly guaranteed whilst the demand for payment itself was not linked to the telephone transactions. The court considered the definition of a proforma invoice and concluded the alleged contract was part of negotiations and was therefore an offer to treat. As there was no indication of agreement on the essential terms, there was therefore no contract and consequently no breach of contract.
In obiter, the court also dealt with the question whether special damages were rightfully awarded by the court a quo. Acknowledging special damages as damage in fact caused by wrong and the claim requirements for specificity of pleading and proof, the court concluded that the award of special damages was inconsistent as liability could not be imported on a non-existent contract.
The court thus concluded in favor of the appellant and allowed the appeal.
The plaintiff sued the defendant state organ for the balance of payment for construction services rendered in respect of a government-owned school premises. It contended that the defendant had failed to pay the agreed-upon amount timeously; his sum claim was therefore the unpaid balance plus compound interest. The defendant contended that the plaintiff had been paid in full – the principal amount plus simple interest for the period of delay. As the agreement was unwritten, the court had to establish its terms. The determination of the type of interest was integral as the parties had not considered this at the time of contracting.
That the defendant was in breach due to its prolonged delay in effecting payment was quickly established by the court. Considering the nature and purport of contractual damages, it established that compound interest was apposite. Examining the plaintiff’s exhibits of standard industry lending rates sourced from the Bank of Uganda, the court determined the correct rate of interest at 22% p.a. and ruled in favour of the plaintiff. It held further that the award of compound interest sufficiently compensated the plaintiff for its restitutionary and expectation interests, thereby obviating the need for general damages.
The background to this application is that the applicant filed against the respondent seeking to recover US$75,000, as payment made in error under a guarantee, interest and costs. The respondent counter-claimed for US$31,767 being the balance owed by the applicant on the guarantee, general damages for breach of the contract of guarantee, interest and costs.
The issue in contention was whether the plaintiff having represented to the defendant that it was entitled to a payment and even made part payment was barred by estoppels from claiming a refund of monies paid to the defendant after the failure of the third-party to make good on its obligations to the plaintiff.
It was held that a court can only exercise the discretion to grant a stay of execution if there are special circumstances and good cause to justify a stay. The inability of the victorious party to be able to refund the decremental amount in the event of a successful appeal is one of such special circumstances if proved.
The court held that the applicant failed to adduce any evidence to show that the respondent will not be able to restore it to the status quo ante if its appeal succeeded. Also, the deponent should have gone a step further to lay the basis upon which the court could make a finding that the applicant would have suffered substantial loss as alleged. The applicant should have gone beyond the vague and generalised assertion of substantial loss in the event a stay order is not granted. It is against this background that the court dismissed the application.
This case involved an allegation that the defendant had not paid fully for services stipulated within an advertising agreement with the plaintiff. This case illustrates the importance interpreting the terms within a contract in line with what the parties to that contract had agreed.
The court held that the court’s duty is to interpret clause 4 of the contract in order to determine what the parties had agreed to. The court had regard to statements of English authority on the interpretation of commercial contracts. In particular,
that ‘[t]here must be ascribed to the words a meaning that would make good commercial sense … and not some meaning imposed … that no businessman in his right senses would be willing to incur.’
The court was satisfied that the according to the terms of the contract, the plaintiff as the ‘landlord’ had provided the defendant as the ‘advertiser’ space for advertising, and undertaken the contested printing activities for its benefit. The court held that the only sensible interpretation of the contract was that the cost of this printing was to be borne by the defendant because the alternative view would lead to a conclusion that ‘flouts common business sense’.
The court ruled that the defendant was supposed to pay the 3.5 million Ugandan shillings for the printing.
The plaintiff’s witness testified that the parties entered into a contract of hire for some construction equipment. The parties agreed that the plaintiff would would hire the equipment for a period of two months for payment .
Before the expected due date for the agreed payment, the defendant sought for a grace period.The plaintiff granted the grace period. However after expiration of the grace period, the cheque from the defendant returned unpaid and marked with the words ‘refer to drawer’. Upon failure to locate the defendant the plaintiff filed suit.
The plaintiff was found to have executed its part of the contract. The defendant’s failure to make funds available on his account constituted a breach of the terms of the contract.
It is trite that special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. The plaintiff was found to have proven this and thus special damages were awarded. Due to non-payment the plaintiff was denied its expected income and inconvenienced. Hence, general damages were granted. The plaintiff was for this reason further awarded interest on the special damages at the rate of 25% per annum from the date the default of payment arose.
This case involved a memorandum of understanding that was departed from orally by both parties. This case illustrates how an oral variation leaves the written contract enforceable.
The court considered three issues, whether there was a valid contract, whether the counter-defendant had breached the contract, and if the counterclaimant is entitled to the remedies available.
The court held that the burden of proving misrepresentation rests on the party alleging it. Secondly, a breach of a contract arises when a party to a contract fails to meet its contractual obligation. However, where a party waives its rights, it cannot claim damages for breach on the same contract. Lastly, the court held that a party must take all reasonable steps to mitigate loss following a breach.
The court was satisfied that there was no proof of misrepresentation on the part of the counterclaimant. The court found that though there was breach of the contract by the counter-defendant, the counter-claimant had waived its rights and could not claim damages for breach on the same contract. The court was satisfied that the counter-claimant did not mitigate its loss and was therefore not entitled to any special damages.
The plaintiff filed an action against the defendant for breach of contract, special damages, general damages, interest and costs of the suit. The two issues were whether there was a legally binding contract for decorating services between the plaintiff and the defendant and whether the plaintiff is entitled to the remedies claimed.
It was submitted that under s 55 of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003 (PPDA or the act) all public procurement has to be carried out in accordance with the rules set out in the act and regulations and guidelines made under the act. The court held that there was non-compliance with the PPDA regulations on procurement of services.
The court stated that the act was established to ensure the application of fair, competitive, transparent, non-discriminatory and value for money procurement and disposal standards and practices. Although there was non-compliance with established procedures as set out above, the contracts committee subsequently agreed with the methodology chosen albeit after the event. They ratified the process.
The court went on to decide that on the first issue thereof of whether there was a legally binding contract for decorating services between the plaintiff and the defendant, that the permanent secretary upon clearance by the Contracts Committee was under obligation to retrospectively regularise the procurement of the services of the plaintiff representing a consortium of companies which carried out decorations. The failure to regularise the procurement of the services of the plaintiff worked injustice because the plaintiffs remained unpaid for services procured and which had been cleared by the Contracts Committee.
Each of the parties accused the other of breach of contract. The plaintiff alleged breach in terms of non-payment for services conducted. The defendant counter-claimed breach in terms of failure to comply with the set completion time and providing substandard quality work.
The defendant also contended that should it be found liable, it should be indemnified by a third party as it has been negligent in doing its work.This court held that the defendant is not entitled to indemnity or any contribution from the third party.
The court found that there was no breach of contract by the plaintiff in so far as completion time is concerned. The defendant waived the right to complain about completion time and was estopped from raising the issue. The defendant was found to not be entitled to monies claimed in the counterclaim, as there was no basis for it and this court had already held that the defendant waived its rights.
The plaintiff was found to be entitled to the monies reflected on two certificates. The plaintiff was not awarded the contractual interest claimed because the court held that the the defendant was justified in not paying contractual interest for an erroneously issued certificate.
Following its non-payment for construction services rendered, the plaintiff sued the defendant for breach of contract. A counter-claim was lodged alleging that the plaintiff breached the parties’ agreement through a significant delay in performance and sub-standard discharge of its obligations. Insofar as the third party had issued unqualified certificates of completion for the plaintiff’s/counter-defendant’s alleged malperformance, the defendant/counter-claimant contended that it was negligent and therefore liable for a degree of indemnification.
The defendant/counter-claimant was found to have impliedly waived its right to liquidated damages for late performance and consequently estopped from enforcing it. The court found further that the plaintiff’s/counter-defendant’s performance, while flawed in some respects, was not materially defective. The issuing of a certificate of completion marks the close of liquidated damages liability and commences the period of defects liability, where errors in performance are identified and submitted to the contract debtor for rectification. Failure to rectify does not give a right to sue for breach but rather gives the employer the right to refuse to release retention monies.
The third party was found to have conducted its work competently, barring one erroneously issued certificate, and was under no obligation to indemnify the defendant. The defendant was therefore indebted to the plaintiff for the outstanding amounts stipulated by the lawfully issued certificates. Because the defendant had accepted and made use of the plaintiff’s performance, despite the erroneously issued certificate of completion, the court found that it was liable to compensate the latter under the law of unjustified enrichment. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff with costs.
The plaintiff sought relief from the court for alleged breach of contract said to have been committed by the defendant. The alleged breach was on the basis that the defendant had renewed a contract the parties had entered into and breached the contract by awarding a tender to another bidder.
In considering whether there was a breach of contract, the court essentially had to decide whether the contract between the parties was renewed.
The court held that the contract was not renewed, thus no breach of contract had taken place.
The court examined the clauses of the contract that was entered into along with legislation that provides guidance regarding procurement in local government in reaching its decision. From the above instruments, the court stated that for renewal to take place, it would have to be in accordance with clause 17.1.1 of the contract and through legislation.
Seeing that that was not the case, the court stated that there was only an oral understanding between the parties to continue working together even after the contract between them had expired.
The suit by the plaintiff was dismissed with costs. Since there was no breach of contract, no remedies were available to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff company brought a suit against the defendant school and its deputy headmaster for breach of contract stating that the defendants failed to pay for services rendered by the plaintiff.
There were two issues before the court: whether there was a valid contract between the parties and whether the plaintiff carried out their services in accordance with local purchase orders 1941 and 1942.
The court held that there was a valid contract between the parties. It was also held that in rendering services, the plaintiff did not supply and install certain items in accordance with local purchase orders 1941 and 1942.
Regarding the validity of the contract, the court found that the second defendant had apparent authority to sign the local purchase orders meaning the contract was valid and that there was no express provision in the legislation stating that non-compliance vitiates legality of contract. In addition, the court found that the first defendant accepted the goods when they were delivered to it and had to pay accordingly.
The court’s judgement relied on a report by the Ugandan National Bureau of Standards which found that some of the items installed by the plaintiff were substandard.
The court awarded the plaintiff Shs 216,000 for delivery of goods and Shs 84,000 for general damages. In addition, the court awarded the plaintiff interest on the above amounts until payment was made in full.
The plaintiff entered into a loan agreement with the respondent. The plaintiff averred that the defendant had neglected and failed to pay the stipulated monthly installments and was therefore in breach of the loan agreement. The defendant however denied the claim and averred that she has never applied for any loan from the plaintiff but contended that her former employer and its directors applied for staff loans from the plaintiff.
The agreed issues however were whether there was a valid loan agreement between the parties; whether the second to fifth counter defendants were parties to the loan agreement; whether the first to fifth counter defendants jointly and severally misrepresented the contents and effect of the loan agreement and whether there is liability to pay the debt claimed by the plaintiff and what remedies are available to the parties.
The court found that there was a debt to be paid since the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a contract which is binding on both parties; the defendant was liable to pay the debt. Since the defendant signed the loan agreement personally with the plaintiff, she was to pay the money she owed them. However, since the second, third, fourth and fifth counter defendants misrepresented to the defendant the terms and contents of the loan agreement they were found liable in this respect and ordered to pay the defendant the equivalent of the principal sum which the defendant owed to the plaintiff.
In this case the defendant raised a preliminary objection to the suit on grounds that the suit is time barred and that the High Court of Uganda has no jurisdiction to try the suit. The court stated that it could not decide on the issue of time until it makes a determination on whether it could exercise its jurisdiction in the matter. The court relied on article 139 of the Constitution and the rule that a contract cannot oust the jurisdiction of the high court and held that a clause to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the foreign court is enforceable by the High Court. However, the court stated that the jurisdiction of the court in such circumstances is subject to the plaintiff justifying the filing of the action in Uganda, for instance by proving that the defendant was using the exclusive jurisdiction clause to avoid liability. The court was satisfied that the plaintiff in this case had failed to do so. Accordingly, the court enforced the terms of the contract, sustained the preliminary objection and dismissed the suit with costs.
The plaintiff sued the defendant for breach of contract following its failure to pay in full – inclusive of VAT and penalties accruing from delayed payment – for construction services rendered. Two clear issues arose: whether the plaintiff was entitled to the sum claim and what remedies were available to the litigants. The contract provided for specific procedures in the event of disputes between its signatories. The plaintiff’s grievances with the project manager’s final certificate (which confirmed the amount owing by the defendant) ought to have been aired via these channels, so the defendant could be alerted thereto.
Because timeous and effective payment was based on certificates, the court found that the defendant could not be held liable for non-payment exceeding the certified amount. The court accordingly reduced the sum claim. Because the defendant had hampered the plaintiff’s commercial endeavours through its breach, it stood liable for general damages. The plaintiff provided no elucidation on the quantum thereof, and so its determination fell to the court’s discretion.
The appellant sought to overturn a taxation ruling of the Deputy Registrar, contending that the latter had erred in fact and law in coming to its decision. The order prohibited the appellant from charging its client certain fees for services rendered over and above the initial instruction costs.
The Registrar had found that the appellant was estopped from claiming the fees due to the allegedly misleading way it had conducted itself in respect of the client regarding the anticipated bill of costs. The appellate court upheld the challenge, finding that the provisions of the Advocates Act expressly regulated the exclusion of bills of costs, thereby limiting – in terms of s 14 of the Judicature Act – the High Court’s discretion to apply principles of equitability when adjudicating disputes of this nature.
Both legislation and case law affirmed the appellant’s right to taxation of its bill of costs against the respondent, as it had met the relevant statutory requirements.
The plaintiff supplier sued the defendant – its Local Technical Representative (LTR) in accordance with the National Drug Authority Act for the distribution of pharmaceutical products – for breach of contract. The defendant failed to pay the plaintiff for the assorted products it supplied. The plaintiff consequently claimed for loss of income, damages, interest and costs of suit. The defendant lodged a counter-claim alleging that the plaintiff/first counter-defendant had breached the memorandum of understanding concluded between the parties and had, through various means, attempted to cripple the defendant’s/counter-claimant’s enterprise. It alleged further, as the basis of its challenge to the legality of the arrangement between the first and second counter-defendants, that the just-mentioned parties had colluded in this endeavour so as allow the latter to become the new LTR.
The defendants/counter-claimants successfully raised the procedural bar of res judicata – which prohibits judicially-decided matters from being heard afresh a second time – concerning the plaintiff’s claim, given that the matter of their indebtedness thereto had been resolved in the settlement of antecedent winding-up proceedings. To what extent ought the defendant’s/counter-claimant’s challenge have been raised as part of the previous lawsuit? Suggesting that res judicata was applicable to both parties’ claims, the court nevertheless considered the counter-claimant’s’ case in respect of the first and second counter-defendants and found no measure of illegality or bad faith on the evidence. The counter-claimant was additionally time-barred from seeking review of the National Drug Authority’s decision over the LTR change.
The plaintiff’s suit and defendants’ counter-claims were accordingly dismissed with costs.
In this case the applicant wanted a writ of mandamus to compel the first respondent to pay the outstanding amounts with interest as ordered from the High Court. This case emphasizes that there must be a clear right in order to use a mandamus.
The court held that in order to obtain a writ of mandamus the following must be established: (1) a clear legal right and a corresponding duty in the respondent; (2) that some specific act or thing which the law requires that particular officer to do has been omitted to be done by him; (3) lack of any alternative, and (4) whether the alternative remedy exists but is inconvenient, less beneficial or less effective or totally ineffective.
The rights of the party seeking the writ of mandamus must not be doubtable. The court was not satisfied that the issues regarding the interest to be awarded and the amount due where properly determined. The court found that the applicant’s rights were doubtable. The court dismissed the application and advised the parties to seek an appropriate intervention to give proper interpretation of the trial judge’s judgment.
The plaintiff brought an action for breach of contract, for the defendant to pay the balance of the money paid by the plaintiff to the defendant in terms of their contract, and for interest on the amount.
The sourt held that on the evidence the defendant failed to deliver all the sugar within the seven weeks. The defendants did not adduce any evidence to the contrary, and the plaintiff was entitled to refund of the money paid for the sugar. The issue was whether general damages ought to be awarded in addition to interest on the outstanding amount.
Section 50 of the Sale of Goods Act provided that the remedy for wrongful non-delivery was damages. The measure was the estimated loss directly and naturally resulting in the ordinary course of events from the seller’s breach of contract. General damages will usually be awarded to place the plaintiff in as close a position as possible they would have been had the injury not occurred. Where interest is awarded for deprivation of monies to be paid, then general damages will not be awarded in addition to interest. The award of interest would place the plaintiff in its original position.
The court held that the plaintiff did not adduce evidence of what loss was suffered to warrant an award of general damages. Interest was therefore awarded in lieu of general damages.
The plaintiff instituted a civil action against the defendant for breach of contract and sought the following remedies: an order for specific performance, special damages, general damages and interest.
The court had to consider whether the plaintiff had a cause of action, whether the defendant was in breach or failed to perform and whether the plaintiff was entitled to any relief.
The court held that a cause of action existed and that the defendant was indeed in breach as he failed to perform his part of the bargain, consequently the plaintiff was entitled to relief.
The court stated that where a plaintiff has a liquidated demand, there is no need to assess the demand where no defense is presented. The court relied on previous judgments that made a distinction between a liquidated demand and pecuniary damages. With further reliance on existing civil procedure legislation, the court found that the plaintiff was entitled to judgement based on the liquidated demand.
The court awarded judgment in favour of the plaintiff for the amount on the liquidated demand. Due to no evidence being led, relief in the form of special and general damages was not awarded. The court granted the plaintiff 10% interest on the amount in the liquidated demand.
The plaintiff instituted an action against the defendant to recover a sum of money owed to the plaintiff for the construction of a television complex constructed by the plaintiff on the defendant’s premises. The defendant submitted a counterclaim.
The court was faced with a number of issues to resolve, namely: whether the deed of variation entered into by the parties was void for illegality; whether the plaintiff breached he contract; whether the plaintiff is entitled to any remedies and whether the defendant is entitled to their counter claim.
The court held that (i) the deed of variation was enforceable; (ii) the plaintiff was not in breach of contract; (iii) the counter claim by the defendant must fail and that the plaintiff was entitled to remedies for the sum withheld.
The court relied on existing legislation to distinguish between variation and amendment- the former dealt with changes in the contract relating to the price, completion date or statement of requirements of the contract and the latter related to changes in terms and conditions of the awarded contract. The court relied on witness testimonies from which it determined that the plaintiff was not in breach of contract.
The defendant’s counterclaim was dismissed, and the plaintiff awarded Shs 749,884,386 being the money owed to it by the defendant. Interest was set at 19% p.a. Costs were ordered in favour of plaintiff.
This is a case relating to to a contractual dispute where the plaintiff was suing the defendant for breach of contract.
The defendant had been contracted by the Uganda Revenue Authority to construct a border post. The defendant then sub-contracted the plaintiff to perform certain work under three contracts. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant unlawfully terminated one of the contracts after they demanded payment. The defendant contended that it was the plaintiff who unilaterally terminated the contract by halting work at the site resulting in the defendant taking over the work. The defendant further counter-claimed that the plaintiff used some of their equipment and as result the plaintiff owes them compensation.
The court held that there were disparities between the plaintiff’s witnesses and that the defendant did not unilaterally terminate the contract. It ruled that the defendant could not be held liable for any sum of money beyond payment for work the plaintiff had actually performed. The court also found that there was no evidence to show that the amount of work done was to a value in excess of what was paid.
The case was dismissed. The counter-claim was equally dismissed for lack of evidence
The issue was whether an arbitrator has power to amend a contract.
The applicant was challenging an arbitral decision arguing that the composition of the arbitration tribunal and the award itself were wrong. It argued that the arbitrator dealt with an issue which was not contemplated by the parties and that he amended the subject contract in contravention of clause 10 of the contract. The applicant further alleged that the conduct of the arbitrator showed bias in favor of the respondents.
The respondent on the other hand argued that there was no evidence to show that the arbitrator was partial. They further contended that there was no contravention of clause 10 because the amendments were made in terms of clause 13 of contract.
In deciding the case, the court held that amendments to the contract cannot be made without consensus of each party. It ruled that an amendment in terms of clause 13 required an arbitrator appointed in accordance with that provision. It further held that the clause 10.2 of the contract only allowed an amendment by agreement in writing by both parties which was not the case in the matter before the court.
On allegations of partiality of the arbitrator, the court found that communication between the applicant and respondent shows likelihood of bias. The court further ruled that the composition of the tribunal was not in accordance with the contract. All these amounted to breach of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The arbitration award was set aside.
The dispute emanated from the arrest of the plaintiff’s workers on the instruction of defendant, the National Forestry Authority on allegation of illegally felling trees. This was despite the fact that the plaintiff was licensed to harvest the trees. The plaintiff was forced to pay 150 000 shillings for the tools and logs impounded by the police.
The plaintiff claimed compensation amounting to 3 million shillings for mistreatment, mental health and psychological torture at the hands of the defendant. She further claimed special damages for loss of income. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant breached the license awarded to the plaintiff to harvest abandoned logs
The defendant contended that that the plaintiff breached her license by illegally harvesting timber beyond what was permitted by the license. It argued that the plaintiff’s claim was outrageous in view of the fact that she abandoned the license and that the allegations of mistreatment was frivolous. On special damages, the defended argued that the plaintiff failed to produce evidence to show any loss.
In deciding the matter, the court held that the defendant was in breach of its obligations towards the plaintiff and awarded damages of 3 million shillings for breach of the contract, lost opportunities and inconveniences suffered. The claim for special damages was dismissed.
The plaintiffs sued the defendant for breach of contract. The first plaintiff claimed US $190,747 for services rendered to the defendant. The second plaintiff claimed US $3,085 being the outstanding balance for provision of services to the defendant before their contract was terminated. The plaintiffs each reached a settlement agreement in which the defendant was going to pay a portion of the claimed amount.
The plaintiffs later claimed they concluded the first payment under duress, and sought the full amounts originally claimed plus interest.
The defended raised a defence of res judicata on the grounds that the case was premised on a subject matter which has been previously decided. It produced letters of acknowledgment of full payment.
The court dismissed the res judicata defence on the basis that this was a different case because there were new parties and that the plaintiffs were now seeking interest. However, the court held that there was no evidence of duress and if the plaintiffs were assaulted they should have made a police report. The court ruled that it cannot ignore the letter of acknowledgement of full payment on the grounds that a contract entered by parties should be respected.
The case was dismissed with costs.
The plaintiff was contracted to supply a fleet of vehicles to the defendant. The parties agreed that the plaintiff would supply the vehicles on the specified date of the launch of a fundraising drive; as the cars were required as prizes in a lottery. Upon delivery, the defendant was to ensure that 100% of the purchase price was paid within two weeks after the launch.
The plaintiff supplied four vehicles timeously but the remaining were allegedly delivered late. The defendant subsequently failed to make payment for the vehicles. The plaintiff filed an action for breach of contract. The issue before the court was whether the defendant was liable for breach of contract and whether the plaintiff was entitled to the remedies sought.
This court held that the loss which the plaintiff claimed to have incurred was self-inflicted. This court found the plaintiff’s suit had no merit and suite was dismissed. The reason being that the plaintiff’s evidence was said to not proven supply of vehicles and breach of contract on the defendant's part.
The defendant procured the services of the plaintiff for upgrades to some of the city’s drainage sites. Following the defendant’s non-payment – pursuant to the issuing of several interim payment certificates by the project manager – the plaintiff terminated the contract, upon which time a final certificate was issued by the project manager for work hitherto completed, in observance of the agreement’s termination procedure. The defendant objected to the payable figures outlined in the final certificate due to its apparent failure to factor in alleged performance anomalies on the part of the plaintiff. The defendant unilaterally reviewed the certificates before issuing a final certificate with a reduced outstanding fee. Establishing which set of certificates was legally enforceable formed the heart of the dispute.
The court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, finding the defendant’s claims to be substantially impaired on several grounds. The regulations impacting the issue and review of payment certificates came into force after the conclusion of the contract, so general legal principles and the agreement’s terms took precedence in the court’s analysis. The defendant’s unilateral amendment of the final certificate did not accord with the parties’ General Conditions of Contract; it was not delivered to the plaintiff nor agreed to in writing thereby.
The issuing of final certificates creates a liquid debt – discrepancies ought to have been raised prior to certification and resolved by adjudication or arbitration as per the parties’ agreement. Failing this, the court found that the set-off sought by the plaintiff ought to have been raised in the current suit via counter-claim and not through unilateral adjustment of the final certificate.
The defendant was found further to have misrepresented a final certificate of completion to the plaintiff, following the project manager’s issuing thereof, and consequently estopped from raising the erroneous conduct of its project manager as a justification for its non-payment. The plaintiff was awarded damages with interest reflecting the conventional rate for commercial banking.
The plaintiff’s action against the defendant is for a declaration that the defendant breached the contract executed with the plaintiff for the supply of 1000 metric tons of bitumen.
The issue was whether the defendant breached the contract entered with the plaintiff. The court held that it amounted to a breach of a contract whilst reiterating that the plaintiff made it impossible for the defendant to perform the contract.
The court considered whether the defendant breached the contract for the agreed timeline or the plaintiff breached the contract by failure to take the supply of what the plaintiff ordered hence the counterclaim. It was then a question of fact as to whether any contract is frustrated by any even or factor looking into the obligations of the parties. In this case the frustrating event advanced by the defendant is blockage of its money.
The court explained the principle of frustration. Section 66 (1) of the Contracts Act 2010 provides for discharge of parties to a contract from future performance of the contract unless the opposite party assumed the risk of impossibility. It simply means that both parties ought to be discharged of their obligations for the future performance of the contract. In other words the defendant is discharged from the supply obligation as much as the plaintiff is discharged from the obligations of a buyer.
The court ruled that the contract had not been frustrated and the defendant was in breach of contract.