[2007] UGCommC 86

[2007] UGCommC 86

The court found that the defendant breached the contract by failing to pay the contract price, failing to provide a consultant, and wrongfully ordering the plaintiff off the site. The contract was a lump sum agreement, and the plaintiff had substantially performed its obligations, with all materials supplied and work nearly completed. The defendant's objections regarding unauthorized materials were dismissed as he had acquiesced to their use and did not provide evidence of any loss or defect requiring rectification. The doctrine of substantial performance applied, entitling the plaintiff to the full contract price. No general damages were awarded, but interest at 20% per annum from the...

Citation
[2007] UGCommC 86
Parties
Plaintiff: Kituni Construction Company Ltd; Defendant: Julius Okeny
Court
Commercial Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
30 October 2007
Case Number
HCT-00-CC-CS 250 of 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment
Outcome
judgment_for_plaintiff
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Construction Contracts, Substantial Performance, Remedies for Breach, Contract Variation
Source Language
English
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Breach of Contract Construction Contracts Substantial Performance Remedies for Breach Contract Variation

Case Brief

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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kituni Construction Company Ltd

Plaintiff

Julius Okeny

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the agreement was breached and by whom.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the whole contract price or any sum at all.
  3. 3 What remedies are available to the plaintiff.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant breached the contract by failing to pay the contract price, failing to provide a consultant, and wrongfully ordering the plaintiff off the site. The contract was a lump sum agreement, and the plaintiff had substantially performed its obligations, with all materials supplied and work nearly completed. The defendant's objections regarding unauthorized materials were dismissed as he had acquiesced to their use and did not provide evidence of any loss or defect requiring rectification. The doctrine of substantial performance applied, entitling the plaintiff to the full contract price. No general damages were awarded, but interest at 20% per annum from the...

Court Disposition

judgment_for_plaintiff

Orders

  • Defendant to pay plaintiff Shs.102,528,500 as special damages.
  • Interest on the above sum at 20% per annum from the date of filing until payment in full.