[2006] UGHC 5

[2006] UGHC 5

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, the existence of any binding oral or written agreement with the defendant for allocation of market stalls measuring 7ft x 7ft after reconstruction. The evidence presented was largely hearsay, inconsistent, and unsupported by...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2006] UGHC 5
Parties
Plaintiff: Aloysious Kakooza Ssalongo; Plaintiff: Onyango Stephen; Plaintiff: Kamulegeya; Plaintiff: Julie Nantume; Plaintiff: Francis Nsamba; Plaintiff: Jamada Luzinda; Plaintiff: Kasim Ngobi; Plaintiff: Regina Nantaba; Plaintiff: Charles Mushabe; Defendant: Kampala City Council
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Civil Suit No.1213 of 1997
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment
Outcome
suit dismissed
Legal Topics
Market Stall Allocation, Oral Contracts, Specific Performance, General Damages, Statute Barred Actions
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Market Stall Allocation Oral Contracts Specific Performance General Damages Statute Barred Actions

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aloysious Kakooza Ssalongo

Plaintiff

Onyango Stephen

Plaintiff

Kamulegeya

Plaintiff

Julie Nantume

Plaintiff

Francis Nsamba

Plaintiff

Jamada Luzinda

Plaintiff

Kasim Ngobi

Plaintiff

Regina Nantaba

Plaintiff

Charles Mushabe

Plaintiff

Kampala City Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether there was a binding agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant for allocation of market stalls of specific size after reconstruction.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to specific performance and general damages for alleged deceit.
  3. 3 Whether the suit is statute barred.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, the existence of any binding oral or written agreement with the defendant for allocation of market stalls measuring 7ft x 7ft after reconstruction. The evidence presented was largely hearsay, inconsistent, and unsupported by documentary proof. The defendant's witnesses credibly testified that stall sizes varied according to goods sold and were determined unilaterally by the defendant, not by agreement. The plaintiffs did not utilize procedures for production of relevant documents, and their claims regarding stall sizes were not substantiated. The court held that continued payment of dues did not entitle...

Court Disposition

suit dismissed

Orders

  • Plaintiffs' suit is dismissed with costs to the defendant.