[2004] UGCommC 23

[2004] UGCommC 23

The court found that the plaintiff was indeed instructed by the second defendant to find land for the first defendant and that he successfully located plot 321 at Mutungo. The evidence established that the plaintiff was the effective broker, despite being excluded from the final transaction. The court rejected the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2004] UGCommC 23
Parties
Plaintiff: Lukyamuzi James; Defendant: Akright Project Ltd; Defendant: Anatoli Kamugisha
Court
Commercial Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
High Court Civil Suit No. 319 of 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment
Outcome
judgment_for_plaintiff
Legal Topics
Contractual Commission Disputes, Agency Relationships, Company Director Liability
Source Language
en
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Contractual Commission Disputes Agency Relationships Company Director Liability

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

Parties

Lukyamuzi James

Plaintiff

Akright Project Ltd

Defendant

Anatoli Kamugisha

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the second defendant instructed the plaintiff to look for land for the first defendant.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff is the broker who found plot 321 at Mutungo for the first defendant.
  3. 3 Whether any commission was due to the plaintiff and, if so, how much.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff was indeed instructed by the second defendant to find land for the first defendant and that he successfully located plot 321 at Mutungo. The evidence established that the plaintiff was the effective broker, despite being excluded from the final transaction. The court rejected the defendants' denial and attempts to discredit the plaintiff, finding their testimony unreliable. The commission of Shs.5m was contractually retained for brokers, and the plaintiff was entitled to this amount. The second defendant, acting as a director, was not personally liable for the acts of the company, and his name was struck out from the suit. Judgment was entered for the...

Court Disposition

judgment_for_plaintiff

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the plaintiff against the first defendant for Shs.5,000,000.
  • Interest at 18% per annum from the date of filing until payment in full.