[2018] UGHCCD 44

[2018] UGHCCD 44

The High Court found that the trial magistrate erred in holding that the appellant admitted liability during mediation, as there was no evidence of such mediation or admission. However, the court determined that the respondent had produced invoices signed by the appellant's agent, Betty, which, according to both...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] UGHCCD 44
Parties
Appellant: Kasese Hospital Ltd; Respondent: Solene Pharmacy Ltd
Court
HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
10 October 2018
Case Number
HCT – 01 – CV – CA – 0019 – 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed in part
Judges
Musene, J
Legal Topics
Contract of Supply, Summary Suit Procedure, Proof of Delivery, Burden of Proof, Documentary Evidence
Source Language
english
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Contract of Supply Summary Suit Procedure Proof of Delivery Burden of Proof Documentary Evidence

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kasese Hospital Ltd

Appellant

Solene Pharmacy Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial magistrate erred in holding that the appellant admitted liability during mediation.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent proved that the items/drugs in the invoices were requisitioned, supplied, and delivered.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant was indebted to the respondent in the absence of proof of delivery.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court found that the trial magistrate erred in holding that the appellant admitted liability during mediation, as there was no evidence of such mediation or admission. However, the court determined that the respondent had produced invoices signed by the appellant's agent, Betty, which, according to both parties' evidence, were only generated upon delivery and verification of goods. The court found that the appellant did not sufficiently rebut the respondent's evidence of delivery and indebtedness, as the bank statements provided by the appellant did not clearly link payments to specific invoices or deliveries. The court, however, limited the respondent's claim to only those...

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • The appellant is ordered to pay the respondent UGX 7,663,000/=.
  • Any claim above UGX 7,663,000/= is disallowed.