[2008] UGCommC 83

[2008] UGCommC 83

The court found that the contract between the parties was a fixed price (lump sum) contract for USD 139,015, inclusive of VAT, as evidenced by the parties' correspondence and agreement. Although the plaintiff did not fully perform the contract, the court held that the defendant's actions—specifically, ordering the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2008] UGCommC 83
Parties
Plaintiff: Hydro Engineering Services Co. Uganda Limited (HESCO); Defendant: Thorne International Boiler Services Ltd (TIBS)
Court
Commercial Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
HCT-00-CC-CS 818 of 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff; defendant's counter-claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Construction Contracts, Breach of Contract, Substantial Performance, Fixed Price Contracts
Source Language
english
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Construction Contracts Breach of Contract Substantial Performance Fixed Price Contracts

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

Parties

Hydro Engineering Services Co. Uganda Limited (HESCO)

Plaintiff

Thorne International Boiler Services Ltd (TIBS)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether or not this was a fixed price contract.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the sum claimed in the plaint.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff caused loss to the defendant by failing to complete the contract.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the contract between the parties was a fixed price (lump sum) contract for USD 139,015, inclusive of VAT, as evidenced by the parties' correspondence and agreement. Although the plaintiff did not fully perform the contract, the court held that the defendant's actions—specifically, ordering the plaintiff off the site after a request for revision of terms—made full performance impossible. The court applied the doctrine of substantial performance, determining that the plaintiff had completed over 90% of the work before being prevented from finishing. There was no independent evidence of shoddy work or that the defendant suffered loss due to the plaintiff's conduct. The...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff; defendant's counter-claim dismissed.

Orders

  • Special damages of USD 16,213 awarded to the plaintiff.
  • Interest on the above at 8% per annum from the date of judgment until payment in full.