[2002] UGCommC 17

[2002] UGCommC 17

The court found that the goods supplied by the defendants were not fit for the purpose for which the plaintiff ordered them, as evidenced by both internal and UNBS analysis. The plaintiff's witnesses were credible and established that the substance was undesirable and potentially harmful for use in ice cream...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2002] UGCommC 17
Parties
Plaintiff: Hwang Sung Industries Ltd; Defendant: Tajdin Hussein; Defendant: Rainbow Foods Ltd; Defendant: Nizar Hussein
Court
Commercial Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Civil Suit No. 276 of 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment
Outcome
judgment_for_plaintiff
Legal Topics
Sale of Goods, Fitness for Purpose, Contractual Refund, Counterclaim Dismissal
Source Language
en
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Sale of Goods Fitness for Purpose Contractual Refund Counterclaim Dismissal

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hwang Sung Industries Ltd

Plaintiff

Tajdin Hussein

Defendant

Rainbow Foods Ltd

Defendant

Nizar Hussein

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the defendants are liable to refund US$ 8,000 paid by the plaintiff for goods rejected as unfit for purpose.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff was entitled to reject the goods supplied by the defendants.
  3. 3 Whether the defendants are entitled to the balance of the contract price under their counterclaim.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the goods supplied by the defendants were not fit for the purpose for which the plaintiff ordered them, as evidenced by both internal and UNBS analysis. The plaintiff's witnesses were credible and established that the substance was undesirable and potentially harmful for use in ice cream production. The plaintiff was entitled to reject the goods and claim a refund of the deposit paid. The defendants failed to prove that the goods were fit for purpose or that the plaintiff was liable for the balance of the contract price. The counterclaim was dismissed for lack of evidence. The court awarded the plaintiff US$ 8,000, costs of the UNBS analysis, general damages, and...

Court Disposition

judgment_for_plaintiff

Orders

  • Defendants to pay plaintiff US$ 8,000 as refund of deposit.
  • Defendants to pay plaintiff UGX 40,000 for UNBS analysis costs.