Stanbic Bank Uganda LTD v Sekalega (Civil Suit No. 185 of 2009) [2016] UGCommC 15 (25 February 2016)

Key Facts

Transaction Type

Issues

• The court awarded the plaintiff special damages of US$38,568, general damages of Shs.25,000,000, interest at 6% per annum on both amounts, and costs of the suit. These remedies were granted due to the defendant's failure to deliver the equipment and the plaintiff's resulting financial loss.
• The court found that the defendant breached the contract by failing to deliver all the agreed equipment after receiving full payment. Despite commitments to deliver by 06.04.09, the defendant only delivered equipment worth US$8,500 and did not fulfill the remaining obligations, leading to the plaintiff's claim for damages.
• The court determined that a contract existed between Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited and Hajji Yahaya Sekalega for the supply of photo studio equipment. The contract was established through a lease offer letter, proforma invoice, and local purchase order (LPO) issued by the plaintiff, confirming the terms of the agreement and payment.

Holdings

• The court found that there was a contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant for the supply of assorted digital photo studio equipment. The contract was established through a lease offer letter, proforma invoice, and local purchase order (LPO) issued by the Plaintiff, with evidence confirming the Defendant's acceptance and payment of the agreed amount.
• The court awarded the Plaintiff special damages of US$ 38,568 (the sum advanced to the Defendant), general damages of Ugandan Shillings 25,000,000, and interest at 6% per annum on both amounts. Costs of the suit were also granted to the Plaintiff. The Defendant's counterclaim was dismissed for lack of proof.
• The court determined that the Defendant breached the contract by failing to deliver the full agreed equipment (worth US$ 55,780.5) after receiving all payments. Despite multiple demands and a committed delivery date of 06.04.09, the Defendant only delivered equipment worth US$ 8,500, substantially failing to perform under the contract.

Remedies

• The Plaintiff is awarded special damages in the sum of US$38,568, which was the amount advanced to the Defendant for the purchase of the equipment.
• The Plaintiff is awarded the costs of the suit as the successful party in this case.
• The Plaintiff is awarded general damages of Shs.25,000,000 for the inconvenience suffered due to the breach of contract.
• Interest is awarded on the special damages at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the suit until payment in full.
• Interest on general damages is awarded at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of judgment until payment in full.

Contract Value

Monetary Damages

Legal Principles

• The lease agreement required the Customer to pay 40% (US$25,712.5) as consideration, with the Plaintiff purchasing the equipment on the Customer's behalf. The Defendant's proforma invoice and receipts confirmed receipt of partial payment, forming the basis of the contractual obligation.
• The court applied the principle that costs follow the event (Section 27(2) of the Civil Procedure Act), awarding costs to the Plaintiff as the successful party. The Defendant's counterclaim was dismissed due to failure to prove special damages.
• The court found a contract existed between the Plaintiff and Defendant based on the proforma invoice, lease offer letter, and local purchase order (LPO). The Defendant's proforma invoice constituted an offer, and the Plaintiff's payment and issuance of the LPO amounted to acceptance.
• The court determined the Defendant breached the contract by failing to deliver the agreed equipment after receiving full payment, despite commitments to deliver by 06.04.09 and subsequent extensions. This deprived the Plaintiff of the contract's intended benefit.

Precedent Name

• Nipunnoratham Bhatia Vs Crane Bank Ltd
• Storer Vs Merchant City Council
• Mohanlal Kakubhai Radia Vs Warid Telecom Ltd
• Haji Asuman Mutekanga Vs Equator Growers (U) Ltd
• Bristol Cardiff and Swansea Aerated Bread Co. Ltd Vs Maggs
• Gapco (U) Ltd Vs A.S. Transporters (U) Ltd
• Hardley Vs Baxendale
• Ronald Kasibante Vs Shell (U) Ltd
• Moses Ssali a.k.a. Bebe Cool & Others Vs Attorney General & Others
• Uganda Commercial Bank Vs Kigozi

Key Disputed Contract Clauses

• The Defendant claimed the full consideration (US$27,000) was not paid by the Customer, but the court found that the Customer had paid the 40% deposit (US$25,712.5) and the Plaintiff had paid the remaining balance (US$38,568) to the Defendant. The court rejected the Defendant's argument, confirming full payment as per the contract terms.
• The contract stipulated that the Plaintiff would only make payment to the Supplier upon receiving confirmation of the Customer's 40% deposit (US$25,712.5) and a proforma invoice in the Plaintiff's name. The Defendant disputed whether the full consideration was met, but the court confirmed the Plaintiff's compliance with these payment terms.
• The Defendant argued the LPO did not specify the time or mode of delivery, while the Plaintiff maintained that the Defendant committed to delivering the equipment by 06.04.09. The court ruled the Defendant's failure to deliver the full equipment within a reasonable timeframe constituted a breach, despite the lack of explicit delivery terms in the documents.

Cited Statute

• Civil Procedure Act
• Contracts Act
• Evidence Act
• Sale of Goods Act

Judge Name

Passage Text

• In the present case, it is apparent from the evidence that the Defendant breached the contract when he failed to supply all the agreed equipment after receiving all payment.
• The Plaintiff is awarded special damages in the sum of US$ 38,568 the sum that was advanced to the Defendant for the purchase of the equipment.
• For all those reasons Court finds that there was a contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant for purchase and supply of assorted digital photo studio equipment.

Damages / Relief Type

• Award of costs of the suit to the Plaintiff as the successful party.
• Interest at 6% per annum on general damages from the date of judgment until full payment.
• Award of general damages of Shs.25,000,000 for the inconvenience caused by the breach.
• Award of special damages in the amount of US$38,568 for the sum advanced to the Defendant.
• Interest at 6% per annum on the special damages from the date of filing the suit until full payment.