Court name
High Court of Uganda
Judgment date
27 November 2008

Lubang Benedict, Olal Obong Andrew v Komakech Richard Ogaba (Civil Suit-2006/37) [2008] UGHC 114 (27 November 2008);

Cite this case
[2008] UGHC 114



THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA


IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT GULU

HCT 02 CV CS 0037 2006

1.      
LUBANG BENEDICT

2.      
OLAL OBONG ANDREW<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<PLAINTIFFS

VERSUS

KOMAKECH RICHARD OGABA<<<<<<<<<<<<DEFENDANT



BEFORE: HON. JUSTICE REMMY K. KASULE



JUDGMENT



        
        
Both plaintiffs sued the defendant for shs 7,500,000/= principal sum and general damages for breach of contract.

        
        
In a written statement of defence filed in court on 29.12.2006, the defendant admitted owing money to one of the plaintiffs, but not
in the amount the plaintiffs claim in the plaint.

        
        
The defendant, though served with court process for the hearing date, never appeared in court and gave no reason for being absent
and so the hearing proceeded in his absence.


        
        
The second plaintiff testified and was the only witness for plaintiffs case.

        
        
His testimony was to the effect that the defendant was their personal friend and in September, 2005, they both paid shs.13,500,000/=
in cash to defendant being the cost of a tractor to be supplied to them from
United Kingdom by the defendant through some other third party contacts of the defendant. Defendant undertook to supply the tractor by December,
2005.

        
        
The defendant never supplied the tractor and plaintiffs demanded for refund of the money. Defendant only refunded shs 5,500,000/= to first plaintiff. A balance of shs 8,000,000/= remained unpaid.

        
        
Plaintiffs denied that the defendant had refunded any further sums of money.

        
        
Defence did not appear at the hearing and adduced no evidence to
controvert the evidence of the second plaintiff. Court accepts the said evidence

        
        
However the sum claimed in the plaint is shs 7,500,000/= and not shs 8,000,000/= testified to by the second plaintiff. It is the claim
of shs 7,500,000/=
that was served upon the defendant and not shs 8,000,000/=. The Plaint was never amended. The plaintiffs are bound by their pleadings.

        
        
No evidence was given as to the claim for general damages. None are thus awarded.

        
        
Judgment is therefore entered for both plaintiffs against the defendant for shs 7,500,000/= being the unrefunded balance of the purchase price money paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant for a
tractor that was never supplied.

        
        
As the tractor, if supplied, was going to be used for commercial agriculture purposes, according to the evidence of the second plaintiff, it is only fair that the plaintiffs are awarded interest at the commercial rate of
22% p.a. on the sum
of shs 7,500,000/=. It is so ordered. The said interest is to run from 1st December, 2005, when the tractor was to be supplied, till payment in full.

        
        
The plaintiffs are awarded the costs of the suit.







.........................................

Remmy K. Kasule

Judge

28
th November, 2008