[2006] UGCommC 25

[2006] UGCommC 25

The court found that the defendant breached an implied term of the contract by failing to deliver the duplicate certificate of title for Plot 44 within a reasonable time, as the existence of the certificate was an implied warranty in the sale of registered land. The court also held that the defendant's advert...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2006] UGCommC 25
Parties
Plaintiff: Esther Sempebwa; Defendant: Non Performing Assets Recovery Trust
Court
Commercial Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
HCT-00-CC-CS 954 of 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff in part.
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Misrepresentation, Sale of Land, Implied Terms, Damages, Caveat Emptor
Source Language
en
Commercial and Corporate Land and Property Breach of Contract Misrepresentation Sale of Land Implied Terms Damages Caveat Emptor

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Esther Sempebwa

Plaintiff

Non Performing Assets Recovery Trust

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's failure or refusal to hand over title for Plot 44 amounts to breach of contract.
  2. 2 Whether the improper description of the property in the advert amounts to a misrepresentation.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff had an obligation to make proper inquiries regarding the land before purchase.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant breached an implied term of the contract by failing to deliver the duplicate certificate of title for Plot 44 within a reasonable time, as the existence of the certificate was an implied warranty in the sale of registered land. The court also held that the defendant's advert constituted an innocent misrepresentation, as it described a house and servants' quarters on the property that were not present on the purchased plots. The plaintiff, however, failed to prove her claim for special damages regarding the alleged purchase of Plot 117, as there was insufficient evidence of ownership and value. The court applied the principle of caveat emptor, finding...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff in part.

Orders

  • The defendant shall pay the plaintiff general damages of UGX 17,000,000 for breach of contract and innocent misrepresentation, with interest at 25% per annum from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • The defendant is legally obliged to provide the special certificate of title for Plot 44 to the plaintiff when available.