Commercial Law Index

The court made a ruling on a preliminary objection raised against a suit filed by the respondent to review a consent judgment executed between the applicants and the Uganda Revenue Authority. The applicants submitted that the respondent lacked locus standi to make the application according to Order 46 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

The court went into some detail and examined who a ‘person aggrieved’ is. It was held that the expression referred to a person who suffered a legal grievance. However, the court in its interpretation followed English law and held that the expression cannot be restricted to definite categories with sharp definitive lines (restrictive interpretation). Consequently, the court held that the expression would also cover public interest litigation as embodied in the Ugandan Constitution, to include a member of the public who brings an action to ensure that the law is enforced or upheld.

The court noted that the objection was procedural and that the respondent’s application for review was procedurally incorrect since it was framed as a public interest litigation application. The court therefore determined that the main issue before it was whether a wrong procedure invalidates the proceedings. The court relied on article 126(2)(e) of the constitution in making a holding that the court had jurisdiction to determine the matter without undue regard to the technicalities.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the application with costs.

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 court considered whether the petitioner was unable to pay his debts, a bankruptcy order could be granted and whether the petitioner had any properties to be administered by a trustee in bankruptcy.

The court held that a petitioner must prove that he is unable to pay his debts exceeding Uganda Shillings fifty million in terms of Insolvency Act s 3. Further, once a debtor files a petition the court has the jurisdiction to determine the matter as it deems fit and order is granted where the petitioner has filed a statement of affairs with the official receiver in terms of s 4 of the act.

The court found that the petitioner had shown that he was unable to pay his debts by attaching his statements of account. The petitioner also did not file his statement with the official receiver.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition.

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 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 matter arose from a dispute about the detention of goods belonging to the second plaintiff by the defendant. 

The first issue was whether the detention was lawful. Section 214 of the East African Community Customs Act required notice of detention to owners when known. As ownership was not clear, the court observed that notice was not necessary. It also further reasoned that the conduct of the defendant did not amount to seizure as the goods were already in their hands with the knowledge of owners before they were impounded. The court thus held lack of notice did not breach the legislation and therefore not unlawful. 

On whether the goods were wrongfully detained, the court reasoned that the act of holding out representation of title by the second plaintiff and the allegations of fraud was cause for investigation by the defendants and consequent detention pending investigation of ownership. Further, the defendant was legally obliged to hold on to the goods as a lien pending the demand of payment of tax. The detention was therefore lawful. 

Lastly, the court considered whether the MoU entered into by the plaintiffs and defendant was entered into by duress. Citing Pao On v Lau [1979] 3 ALL ER 65 for factors to prove duress, the court noted that the plaintiffs protested and denied indebtedness arising from the memorandum of understanding (MoU) but did not necessarily repudiate immediately or seek redress. It thus reasoned that the actions of the plaintiff did not show duress and therefore held the MoU was entered without duress.
 

This case looked at the whether the veil of incorporation could be lifted and the defendants held liable for the debt of the company. The court looked at the instances when lifting of the corporate veil was applicable. There are three instances when the veil of incorporation can be lifted. 1) when a court in construing a statute, contract or other documents; 2) when the court is satisfied that the company is a mere façade concealing the true facts and 3) when it is established that the company is an authorized agent of its members/directors.

Further, the veil of incorporation can be lifted when the veil of incorporation is used as an instrument of fraud. The standard of proof required in cases of fraud is more onerous that the ordinary balance of probabilities. Section 20 of the Companies Act (‘the act’) empowers a court to lift the veil of incorporation against directors where there is any involvement in fraud by the directors. Fraud was defined to mean any act of dishonesty or actual fraud.

The court found in this case that the plaintiff was barred from instituting action against the defendants. Accordingly, the claim was dismissed with costs.

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 dispute related to a piece of land that was held by the applicant as tenants in common who thereafter entered into an agreement to sell the land to the respondent. The agreement included terms for initial payment and payment of the balance when handing over the property.

The respondent took possession of the land after paying the balance when he signed the land transfer form. However, the respondent averred that title to the land was never transferred. The appellants contended that the respondent failed to pay the remaining amount so sold it to a third party.

After several delays, the appellant’s lawyers did not appear at trial, and the court heard the matter and entered ex parte judgment in favour of the respondents. The appellants contended that a hearing notice to proceed without the appellants (ex parte) was not served on them.

The Court of Appeal held that an ex parte judgment can only be set aside if there is a sufficient cause and the failure to serve the notice for hearing is not one of the grounds for setting aside the ex parte judgment. The court held that the ex parte judgment could not be set aside.

The dispute related to a piece of land that was held by the applicant as tenants in common who thereafter entered into an agreement to sell the land to the respondent. The agreement included terms for initial payment and payment of the balance when handing over the property.

The respondent took possession of the land after paying the balance when he signed the land transfer form. However, the respondent averred that title to the land was never transferred. The appellants contended that the respondent failed to pay the remaining amount so sold it to a third party.

After several delays, the appellant’s lawyers did not appear at trial, and the court heard the matter and entered ex parte judgment in favour of the respondents. The appellants contended that a hearing notice to proceed without the appellants (ex parte) was not served on them.

The Court of Appeal held that an ex parte judgment can only be set aside if there is a sufficient cause and the failure to serve the notice for hearing is not one of the grounds for setting aside the ex parte judgment. The court held that the ex parte judgment could not be set aside.

In this case the plaintiff claimed for special and general damages against the defendant for fraud and conversion of the plaintiff’s petroleum products. The case deals with fraud, where the party that benefited was not a bona fide purchaser of the products in this case. The court considered whether the defendant had good title for the products sold to him by the third party. Whether the defendant had a claim against the third party and whether there were remedies available to the parties.

In dealing with the first issue the court considered whether the defendant had acquired a better title than the mysterious seller had because the mysterious seller did not have any title to the good. The court applied the general rule in the latin maxim nemo dat quod non habet which was reflected in section 22 (1) of the Sale of Goods Act. The court found that the mysterious seller had no title to pass to the defendant and thus the defendant never acquired good title to the property. Therefore, the defendant was liable to make good any loss suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the conversion of the plaintiff’s goods.

In considering the second issue, the court found that the defendant had proved the transaction it had made with the third party and was therefore indemnified against the third party.

In considering the remedies available to the parties, the court held that general damages are compensatory to fulfil the principle of restitution in integrum which aims at restoring the plaintiff as nearly as possible to the position he or she would have been had the injury not occurred.

Therefore, the court upheld the plaintiff’s claim with costs.
The court also held that for the indemnity suit against the third party, the third party was to settle all liabilities ordered against the defendant less the amount against the defendant.
 

The first appellant and the respondent are siblings whom were initially registered as tenants in common, on a land plot.  In 2002, the proprietorship of this land was transferred from the names of the siblings to the 2nd to 8th appellants (who were at the time minor children of the first appellant). 

The respondent was aggrieved by the transfer and registration of the appellant's descendants to the suit property. She contended that the first appellant had acted fraudulently in this transfer. She went to the High Court seeking reinstatement of her name on the suit title. The High Court granted the orders sought. 

The appellants appeal the decision of the High Court. On the grounds that (1) the court erred in evaluating the evidence of the first appellant as a whole, nor recording of his evidence and (2) the respondent freely relinquished her interests in the property. 

The respondent filed a cross appeal declaring that she is entitled to award of mesne profits and or general damages as well. 

This court found that the transfer form did not amount to forgery or fraud. The appeal therefore succeeded in part. However, it was found that the respondent had not fulfilled the condition of transferring and subdividing part of lands into the names of the respondent - as they agreed. 

The respondent was found to have carried out her part of the bargain and the first respondent must do his own as well. 
 

The defendants applied for credit facilities to obtain steel products from the plaintiff. The second and third defendants stood surety. The plaintiff contended that the defendants refused to pay for the steel products. The proceedings were for breach of contract, and special and general damages. The defendants denied concluding the contract, and argued the matter ought to be heard in South Africa.

The issues for determination were whether the court lacked jurisdiction; whether there was a contract between the parties; whether the defendants breached the contract; and whether second and third defendants were liable.

On the issue of jurisdiction, the court considered the agreement. It was clear that the parties consented to the jurisdiction of the High Court of South Africa, however the court held that the Constitution and Judicature Act provided it with unlimited original jurisdiction in all matters. Even when parties had an exclusive jurisdiction agreement, the High Court of Uganda still had jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter before it. 

Regarding the existence of the contract, the law required the plaintiff to prove the documents were signed by the second and third defendants. The court found that the plaintiff proved it entered into a valid contract with the defendants.

Whether the defendants breached the contract, the court held that the first defendant breached the contract by failing to pay for the goods, and that the second and third defendants were liable as sureties.

Plaintiff was awarded special and general damages.
 

This was an application for an order of specific performance compelling the defendants to sign transfers of an aircraft.

The court considered the indebtedness of both parties to each other and held that the plaintiff was indebted to the defendants in respect of leasing and purchasing. The court applied the rule that people who freely negotiate and conclude a contract should be held to their bargain and found that the plaintiff’s defence of duress was unviable, since the defendants were entitled to ground the aircraft on grounds of non-payment.

Secondly, the court determined whether the defendants/counterclaimants were entitled to the interest payments claimed in the counterclaim. The court held that the defendants were entitled to the interest as agreed upon in the reconciliation document.

Thirdly, the court considered whether the counter-claimants/ defendants have a cause of action against the second defendant. The court relied on the concept that only parties to a contract can sue for breach (privity of contract). It observed that there were exceptions to this rule where a third party can prove that he is a beneficiary of the contract between the two people. The court held that the defendants were third party beneficiaries since the loan agreement between the first defendant and the second defendant was for their benefit.

Accordingly the case was dismissed and the defendant was awarded special damages and general damages as prayed for, but denied aggravated damages.