|
|
[Home]
[Databases]
[WorldLII]
[Search]
[Feedback]
Uganda: Commercial Court |
[Database Search] [Name Search] [Recent Decisions] [Noteup] [Help]
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
UGANDA AT KAMPALA
(COMMERCIAL COURT
DIVISION)
HCT-00-CC-CS-0825 OF 2004
NGEGE LTD ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MUWANGA PATRICK :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
DEFENDANT
BEFORE: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE YOROKAMU
BAMWINE
J U D G M E N T:
The
Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant is for recovery of Shs.5,375,000-,
damages and costs of the suit.
The Defendant was served summons to file a
defence on 3/11/2004. He refused and/or neglected to file a defence. An
interlocutory
Judgment was entered against him on 23/11/2004. Accordingly, the
case was put before me for formal proof.
According to PW1 Deogratius
Walukaga Kasozi, General Manager Ngege Ltd, the Defendant was their fish
supplier. In the course of time,
he applied for a loan from the Plaintiff for
purposes of boosting his fish business. The application was in writing and it
is on
record as P. Exh. 1. In this application, the Defendant asked for a loan
of Shs.8m. He undertook to refund it in monthly instalments
of Shs.800,000-.
In July 2002, he was given Shs.2m. It is the evidence of this witness that as
security for the said loan, the
supplier (Defendant) pledged his boat and
engine. The company did not take the security into its possession. The loan
agreement
is on record as P. Exh. 11.
The witness further testified that
in December 2002, the Plaintiff made available to the Defendant fish nets worth
Shs.6,750,000-.
The nets were ordered from Uganda Fish Net Manufacturers Ltd
and the Plaintiff paid for them. The Defendant collected the Nets.
This made
the amount availed to the Defendant stand at Shs.8,750,000-. Out of this
amount, the Defendant has made a down payment
of Shs.3,300,000- by way of a
refund. Hence the balance of Shs.5,375,000- which is still due and
owing.
PW2 Mawanda Lwanga wrote the cheque on which the Defendant got the
loan. The cheque was for fish nets. It was drawn on Diamond Trust
Bank for a
sum of shs.10m. Out of this Shs.10m, the Defendant’s cut was
Shs.6,750,000-. The other was for one Kasujja.
From the evidence of the
Plaintiff’s witnesses, the Defendant has since disappeared. Under 0.8 r 3
of the Civil Procedure Rules,
every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not
denied specifically or by necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in
the
pleading of the opposite party, shall be taken to be admitted. The
Defendant was served, he did not file a defence and Judgment
in default was
entered against him. His liability to the Plaintiff was determined at that
level.
Court is satisfied that the Defendant is still indebted to the
Plaintiff in the sum of Shs.5,375,000-. The amount is accordingly
decreed to
the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff has prayed for monthly interest on the
outstanding amount and damages. The law is that when a party fails to do what
he agreed to do or does not do it properly, he is said to be in breach of the
contract. He will be liable to pay damages to the
aggrieved party to compensate
him for any loss occasioned. The essence of awarding compensation to a party
aggrieved by breach of
contract is for the Court to try as much as possible to
put the innocent party in the position he would have been in had the contract
been properly carried out. Baron Alderson in Hadley –Vs- Baxendale (1854)
9 Exh. 341 while delivering Judgment of the Court
established the fundamental
principles of assessing damages in breach of contract.
“Now we think that the proper rule in such a case as the present is this:
Where two parties have made a contract which one of them has broken, the damages which the other party ought to receive in respect of such a breach of contract should be such as may fairly and reasonably be considered as either arising naturally, i.e. according to the usual course of things, from such breach of contract itself, or such as may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of both parties at the time they made the contract as the probable result of the breach of it.”
In the
instant case, counsel for the Plaintiff has invited Court to consider the fact
that the Plaintiff is a business entity engaged
in the business of fish.
Denying it use of its money occasioned loss to it. I agree.
Counsel has
not suggested any figure which she would consider to be an appropriate award for
general damages. Damages are intended
as compensation for the Plaintiff’s
loss. They are not intended as punishment for the Defendant. Bearing in mind
the facts
of the case; the amount of loss that has presumably been occasioned to
the Plaintiff; and the fact that the Defendant had to turn
to the Plaintiff for
financial assistance to enhance his fish business, I deem a sum of
Shs.1,000,000- (one million only) adequate
compensation for the breach of
contract.
The principal sum of Shs.5,375,000- shall have interest
accruing thereon at the commercial rate from the date of filing the suit
till
payment in full. The Plaintiff shall also be paid the costs of the
suit.
In the result, Judgment is entered for the Plaintiff against the
Defendant as follows:
a. Special damages: Shs.5,375,000- (five million three
hundred seventy five thousand only).
b. General damages: Shs.1,000,000- (one
million only).
c. Interest on special damages at commercial rate from the
date of filing the suit till
payment in full.
d. Costs of the
suit.
Yorokamu Bamwine
J U D G E
9/11/2005
SAFLII:
|
Terms of Use
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.saflii.org/ug/cases/UGCommC/2005/60.html
.RTF of original document