Court name
High Court of Uganda
Judgment date
31 January 1994

Total Uganda Ltd v Jim Ann Ltd (Civil Suit-1991/647) [1994] UGHC 27 (31 January 1994);

Cite this case
[1994] UGHC 27
Short summary:

Civil Procedure

 

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
CIVIL SUIT NO.647 OF 1991

TOTAL UGANDA LIMITED::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

JIM ANN LIMITED::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::DEFENDANT
BEFORE: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE I. MUKANZA

JUDGMENT:-

The plaintiff a limited liability company incorporated in Uganda and carrying on business in Uganda brought this action against the defendant which is also a limited 1iabi1ity claiming general and special damages for breach of agreement and interest on the decretal sum.
The defendant company was served with summons to enter appearance but never entered appearance or filed in a written statement of defence. Being satisfied that there an affidavit of service I proceeded to assess damage pursuant to order 9 rule 6 of the civil procedure rules.
The brief facts of the case were that the plaintiff and defendant into an arrangement on 13th July 1990 whereby the plaintiff appointed he defendants as its agent for purpose o running total petrol station in Jinja Municipal council comprised in plot No.62/64 Jinja Municipal taxi car park. Subsequently a sum of Uganda shillings was advanced the defendant as consideration. However in breach of that understanding the defendant appointed rival petrol dealer shell (U) Ltd and offered the same premises to shell. The plaintiff was subsequently, forcefully evicted notwithstanding the massive capital investment that had been injected in the petrol station.

The evidence of One Samuel Edwin Mpaulo a civil engineer with the plaintiffs company as PWI showed that the defendant company and total (U) Ltd entered into an agreement involving the petrol station owned by the defendant. They agreed to install equipment in the premises of the defendant It was agreed that after installation of those equipment the plaintiff will be given a grace period of two years. Then the defendant would give a minimum of ten years on condition that the plaintiff improves on the premises for the defendant to make extension and enter into a lease agreement. After improving the premises and before the 2 years expired the defendant made an alternative arrangement with their competitors shell (U) Ltd by the same premises. They were evicted from the premises and some of their equipments remained with the defendant company and others were delivered to them. It was the plaintiff which incurred the installation of the equipment.