[2005] UGCommC 77

[2005] UGCommC 77

The suit is barred by Section 3(1) of the Contract Act because the plaint is based on an alleged verbal guarantee, with no allegation or evidence of a written and signed agreement or memorandum of guarantee by the defendant. The letter dated 6th November 2002, although signed by the defendant, does not contain any...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2005] UGCommC 77
Parties
Plaintiff: Interfreight (U) Ltd; Defendant: Haji Ahmed Nsubuga
Court
Commercial Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
HCT-00-CC 156 of 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment
Outcome
dismissed_with_costs
Legal Topics
Guarantee Contracts, Statutory Bar, Verbal Agreements, Pleadings Consistency
Source Language
en
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Guarantee Contracts Statutory Bar Verbal Agreements Pleadings Consistency

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

Parties

Interfreight (U) Ltd

Plaintiff

Haji Ahmed Nsubuga

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the suit is barred by Section 3(1) of the Contract Act due to lack of a written and signed guarantee agreement.
  2. 2 Whether the letter dated 6th November 2002 constitutes a memorandum or note of the agreement of guarantee signed by the defendant.

Ratio Decidendi

The suit is barred by Section 3(1) of the Contract Act because the plaint is based on an alleged verbal guarantee, with no allegation or evidence of a written and signed agreement or memorandum of guarantee by the defendant. The letter dated 6th November 2002, although signed by the defendant, does not contain any language indicating a personal guarantee by the defendant for the debts of the companies. The pleadings must be consistent with the evidence, and in this case, the plaint did not plead the existence of a written guarantee. Therefore, the statutory precondition for instituting a suit based on a guarantee was not met, and the suit cannot be entertained by the court.

Court Disposition

dismissed_with_costs

Orders

  • The suit is dismissed as barred by Section 3(1) of the Contract Act.
  • The plaintiff shall pay the costs of the suit to the defendant.