[2009] UGCommC 46

[2009] UGCommC 46

The court found that the bid documents governing the tender for taxi hire services during CHOGM 2007 unambiguously required service providers, including the plaintiff, to charge delegates directly for services rendered. No evidence was adduced to prove that these terms were amended by the Government, nor was any...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] UGCommC 46
Parties
Plaintiff: CHOGM Tour Agents 2007 (U) Ltd; Defendant: Attorney General of Uganda
Court
Commercial Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
HCCS 18 of 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment
Outcome
suit dismissed with costs to the defendant
Legal Topics
Government Tender Disputes, Contractual Liability, Burden of Proof, Special Damages, Public Procurement, Evidence Requirements
Source Language
en
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Government Tender Disputes Contractual Liability Burden of Proof Special Damages Public Procurement Evidence Requirements

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CHOGM Tour Agents 2007 (U) Ltd

Plaintiff

Attorney General of Uganda

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Judgment

  1. 1 Who was legally responsible for payment for taxi hire services rendered to CHOGM delegates.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff proved entitlement to special and general damages against the Government.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the bid documents governing the tender for taxi hire services during CHOGM 2007 unambiguously required service providers, including the plaintiff, to charge delegates directly for services rendered. No evidence was adduced to prove that these terms were amended by the Government, nor was any contract or Local Purchase Order (LPO) issued to the plaintiff. The issuance of 'OFFICIAL' stickers was for security and accreditation purposes and did not create a contractual obligation for the Government to pay for the services. The plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proof required to establish Government liability for payment, and did not provide sufficient evidence...

Court Disposition

suit dismissed with costs to the defendant

Orders

  • The plaintiff's claim against the Government is dismissed.
  • Costs of the suit are awarded to the defendant.