[1997] UGSC 2

{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;}{\f175\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;} {\f176\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;}{\f178\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f179\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f180\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);} {\f181\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);}{\f182\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f183\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese);}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255; \red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0; \red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 \snext0 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\*\ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\trcbpat1\trcfpat1\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{ \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa100\sbauto1\saauto1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext15 \styrsid10316692 Normal (Web);}} {\*\latentstyles\lsdstimax156\lsdlockeddef0}{\*\pgptbl {\pgp\ipgp0\itap0\li0\ri0\sb0\sa0}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid12292\rsid147964\rsid263824\rsid483953\rsid532800\rsid542833\rsid656068\rsid680519\rsid853000\rsid924932\rsid1212221\rsid1263153\rsid1328200 \rsid1589256\rsid1597739\rsid1769736\rsid1979034\rsid1985355\rsid2651407\rsid2753621\rsid2833257\rsid2891500\rsid3035935\rsid3163095\rsid3436095\rsid3891542\rsid4004402\rsid4013346\rsid4081474\rsid4154319\rsid4278249\rsid4606034\rsid4615111\rsid4804988 \rsid4812412\rsid4816222\rsid4936141\rsid4994645\rsid5133152\rsid5249105\rsid5257113\rsid5338672\rsid5393925\rsid5510309\rsid5529574\rsid5578182\rsid5599792\rsid5925591\rsid6168920\rsid6227913\rsid6298534\rsid6498727\rsid6761646\rsid6774612\rsid7235957 \rsid7297041\rsid7541028\rsid7555992\rsid7699176\rsid7878088\rsid8001677\rsid8538801\rsid8545157\rsid8857076\rsid8875848\rsid9138396\rsid9583136\rsid9729420\rsid9908807\rsid10119127\rsid10167632\rsid10316692\rsid10384870\rsid10438333\rsid10438669 \rsid10517635\rsid10564061\rsid10569595\rsid10693564\rsid10703749\rsid10825639\rsid10959323\rsid10975670\rsid11025202\rsid11078177\rsid11350863\rsid11555040\rsid11563786\rsid11691652\rsid11930287\rsid12014732\rsid12526284\rsid12662586\rsid12718503 \rsid12742138\rsid13255604\rsid13381337\rsid13435762\rsid13466614\rsid13512610\rsid13640487\rsid13704567\rsid13720995\rsid13914955\rsid14043846\rsid14428627\rsid14493501\rsid14626845\rsid14839716\rsid14942689\rsid14962999\rsid15430543\rsid15688051 \rsid15798275\rsid15818385\rsid15882927\rsid15884479\rsid15952220\rsid16061834\rsid16084859\rsid16150457\rsid16265927\rsid16321832\rsid16581033\rsid16604061\rsid16673595}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 11.0.5604;}{\info {\title IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA }{\author Wor. Jessica chemeri}{\operator cguest}{\creatim\yr2008\mo9\dy22\hr10\min38}{\revtim\yr2008\mo9\dy26\hr14\min51}{\version3}{\edmins39}{\nofpages11}{\nofwords2303}{\nofchars13131}{\*\company } {\nofcharsws15404}{\vern24689}}\widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\hyphcaps0\formshade\horzdoc\dgmargin\dghspace180\dgvspace180\dghorigin1800\dgvorigin1440\dghshow1\dgvshow1 \jexpand\viewkind1\viewscale100\pgbrdrhead\pgbrdrfoot\splytwnine\ftnlytwnine\htmautsp\nolnhtadjtbl\useltbaln\alntblind\lytcalctblwd\lyttblrtgr\lnbrkrule\nobrkwrptbl\snaptogridincell\allowfieldendsel\wrppunct \asianbrkrule\rsidroot10316692\newtblstyruls\nogrowautofit \fet0\sectd \linex0\endnhere\sectlinegrid360\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid13381337\sftnbj {\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \s15\qc \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid4278249 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA \line AT MENGO \line (CORAM: MANYINDO DCJ, ODER JSC AND KAROKORA JSC) \line }{\ul\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 19 OF 1995 }{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 \line BETWEEN \line LUWERO GREEN ACRES LTD}{\insrsid4278249 \'85\'85\'85\'85 \'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85}{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 APPELLANT \line AND \line MARUBENI CORPORATION }{\insrsid4278249 \'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85}{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 RESPONDENT \line (Appeal from the Judgment of High Court of Uganda at Kampala (Mr. Justice W. K. M. Kityo) dated \line 9/8/94 \line in \line Civil Appeal No. 14/95) \line }{\ul\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 JUDGMENT OF KAROKORA JSC }{ \insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 \line }{\insrsid4278249 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid4278249 {\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 This is an Appeal against an Exparte Judgment and Decree on appea l of the High Court of Uganda at Kampala dated 9th August, 1994 in which he allowed the appeal and set aside the Judgment and Dec}{\insrsid4278249 ree of the Chief Magistrate. \line \par }{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 The brief facts as can be gath}{\insrsid4278249 ered from the record were that }{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 by an oral agreement between the parties, the appellant supplied poles to the respondent on various dates at a cost of Uganda}{\insrsid4278249 shs. 20,000/}{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 = per pole and upon each delivery, the respondent paid 85% of the value of the pole retaining 15%. \line }{\insrsid4278249 \par }{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 By the end of the contract, the appellant had supplied a total of 2525 }{\insrsid4278249 poles valued at shs. 50,500,000/}{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 = of which 85%; that is shs. 42,925,000/= had been paid and 15%; that is shs. }{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 7,575,000/\emdash }{\i\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 }{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 had been retained as agreed between the parties to be paid at the end of the contract. \line }{\insrsid4278249 \par }{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 At the end of the contract, out of the shs. }{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 7,575,000/\emdash }{\i\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 }{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 retention, the respondent paid shs. 3,075,000/= leaving unpaid balance of shs. 4,500,000/=. \line }{\insrsid4278249 \par }{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 The appellant demanded for the unpaid balance of shs. 4,500,000/= but the respondent refused to pay it as a result of which the appellant filed a suit for the recovery of that amount under Summary Procedure Order 33 of the Civil Procedure Rules. \line }{\insrsid4278249 \par }{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 The respondent successfully applied for leave to appear and defend. In the written Statement of Defence, the respondent denied interalia paragraphs 3 \emdash 7 of the Plaint and in the alternative the respondent claimed that the 15% retention was to be paid to the appellant after the said poles had passed the final test and that 225 green poles were found short of the specifications and were therefore rejected, hence shs. 4,500,000/\emdash being 15% retention thereof could not be paid. \line }{\insrsid4278249 \par }{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 After full hearing, the Learned Chief Magistrate found for appellant and the respondent appealed to the High Court. When the appeal came up f or hearing, the appellant and his Counsel were absent and the respondent was permitted to proceed ex\emdash parte. The Learned Judge allowed the appeal with costs in the High Court and in the Chief Magistrate\rquote s Court, hence this appeal. Six grounds of Appeal were framed, to wit: \line }{\insrsid4278249 \par }\pard \s15\ql \fi-720\li720\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid4278249 {\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 (1) }{\insrsid4278249 \tab }{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 That the Learned Trial}{\insrsid4278249 Judge erred in law and failed }{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 in his bounden duty as the first appellate Court when he merely read the lower Court record without re\emdash appraising it and reaching his own conclusions; \line }{\insrsid4278249 \par }{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 (2) }{\insrsid4278249 \tab }{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 That the Learne d Judge erred in law when he imported into his judgment the contents of an affidavit accompanying an application for leave to appear and defend and relied on the same; \line }{\insrsid4278249 \par }{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 (3) }{\insrsid4278249 \tab }{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 That the Learned Trial Judge erred in law and fact when he held that there was a written agreement between the parties; \line }{\insrsid4278249 \par }{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 (4) }{\insrsid4278249 \tab }{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 The Learned Judge erred in law when he accepted submissions on the fourth ground of appeal and considered the same submissions in his judgment when the ground of appeal offended Order 39 r (1) (2) of Civil Procedure Rules; \line }{\insrsid4278249 \par }{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 (5) }{\insrsid4278249 \tab }{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 That the Learned Judge erred in Law when he held that Section 90 of the Evidence Act applied to the contract between parties; \line }{\insrsid4278249 \par }{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 (6) }{\insrsid4278249 \tab }{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 The Learned Judge misdirected himself on the burden of proof in Civil cases. \line I wish to point out from the star t that both parties or their Counsel relied solely on written submission and therefore in deciding this appeal I shall rely on the record of appeal and written submission of both Counsel. \line }{\insrsid680519 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid4278249 {\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 Dealing with the 1st ground of Appeal, I must state that it is now }{ \insrsid680519 settled that the duty of }{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 the first appell}{\insrsid680519 ate Court is to reconsider and e}{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 valuate the evidence and come to its own conclusions bearing in mind, however, the fact that it never saw the witnesses as they testified. See }{\ul\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 R v Pandya (1957) EA 336, Selle V Associated Motor Boat Co (1968) \line EA 123, James Nsibambi v Lovinsa Nank}{ \ul\insrsid680519 ya (1980) HCB 81, Ephraim Ongom }{\ul\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 Od}{\ul\insrsid680519 ong and Anor v Francis Binega D}{\ul\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 onge C. A. No. 10/1987 (U/SC) unreported. }{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 \line }{\i\insrsid680519 \par }{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 In the instant case it is noted th}{\insrsid680519 roughout the judgment on pages }{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 148, 14 9 & 150 that the Learned Judge based his judgment and conclusion on the affidavit sworn by Inagaki on behalf of Respondent in support of an application seeking leave of the Court to appear and defend the suit brought under Summary Procedure Order 33 of Ci v il Procedure Rules (CPR), where there was an affidavit and the Annexture to that Affidavit. Throughout his judgment he is referring to the affidavit and the annexture to that affidavit, but then the law is that if the court grants leave to the defendant t o defend the suit, the affidavit forms part of the record but it is never evidence in support of the defence which has to be adduced before the Court in the ordinary manner. \line }{\insrsid680519 \par }{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 The Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa in }{\ul\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 Hassanah Issa & Co v }{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 Jeraj Produce Store s (1967) EA 555 while dealing with an Affidavit filed in support of an application seeking leave by the defendant to appear and defend a suit brough}{\insrsid680519 t under Summary Procedure (simi}{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 lar to the instant case) which the Magistrate and the Judge on Appeal had taken into account, had this to say at page 559 (per Sir Charles Newbold, P): \line }{\insrsid680519 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li720\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid680519 {\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 \'93 Having dealt with this preliminary point of jurisdiction, I turn now to consider the question raised on the appeal. With respect to the Judge of the High Court and the Resident Mag istrate, in my view they have both completely misunderstood the legal position in a case }{\insrsid680519 where a Plaint is brought upon }{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 a bill}{\insrsid680519 of exchange They have further }{ \insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 misunderstood the law relating to whether the Court hearing a case can refer to any affidavit fil ed in interlocutory proceedings in that same case. As I have said, the suit was filed under 0.37, it being a suit upon a cheque which was }{\insrsid680519\charrsid4278249 dishonored}{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 . Under that Order the Plaintiff is entitled to enter judgment unless the defendant obtains leave to defend ; and he must apply to a judge for that leave. In that application the defendant files an affidavit setting out the various matters and if the resident Magistrate or the Judge is of the view that the affidavit raises triable issues, then the resident Magistrate or Judge grants leave to defend, which leave may be granted either unconditionally or conditionally. Having obtained leave to defend, then the affidavit upon which that leave was granted remains, of course, upon the record but is in no circums tances evidence in the case itself. The defendant having obtained leave files his defence and the proceedings then continue in precisely the same way as if the suit had not been filed under that particular Order.\'94 \line }{\insrsid680519 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid680519 {\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 Order 35 of the Tanzania Civil Procedure R}{\insrsid680519 ules is simi}{ \insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 lar to our Order 33 of CPR. \line }{\insrsid680519 \par }{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 In the instant case, there is no doubt that the Learned Judge on appeal heavily relied on the affidavit sworn in support of the application, seeking leave to appear and defend the suit brought under the Summary Proc edure and the Annexture \'93A\'94 , when these were not introduced as evidence in the suit itself. In my view, if the defendant wanted to rely on these (affidavit and Annexture A) as his evidence, it ought to have introduced them in evidence when it was testifyin g before Court to prove its case. It was therefore }{\insrsid680519\charrsid4278249 erroneous}{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 on the part of the Learned Judge when he imported and heavily relied on the Affidavit and the Annexture \'93A\'94 thereto at page 150 of the record/judgment line 9 to 19 when he held: \line }{\insrsid680519 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li720\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid680519 {\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 \'93Furthermore, it is noted that in support of appellant\rquote s application for leave to }{\insrsid680519 appear and defend this suit, }{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 that is, i.e. a suit filed under the provisions of \line Order XXXIII of the CPR, as a Summary Proceedings, the appellant continued to supply and receive or acknowledge payment, made in accordance with the stated terms }{\insrsid680519 \emdash }{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 see the supplied in Annexture \lquote A \emdash J!\bullet Therefore, the claim for payment of t}{\insrsid680519 he whole price on the delivery }{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 had never been agree}{\insrsid680519 d upon among the terms and the }{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 Magistr}{\insrsid680519 ate ought to have held so.\'94 \line \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid680519 {\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 With respect, I think in the a}{\insrsid680519 bove passage the Learned Judge }{ \insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 was relying on the affidavit sworn in support of the application for leave to appear and defend the suit, which affidavit and annexture A \emdash J were not part of the defence evidence in the main Suit. In fact, in cross \emdash examination, DWI conceded at page 45 line 30 \emdash 35 that: \line }{\insrsid12014732 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li720\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid12014732 {\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 \'93It is true that the }{\insrsid12014732 contract between Plaintiff and } {\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 the defendant was oral. It is true that the contract was oral to our bene}{\insrsid12014732 fit to guard against the time\emdash }{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 wastage\'94. \line }{\insrsid12014732 \par }{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 Then on page 46 line 27 he stated: \line }{\insrsid12014732 \par }{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 \'93The poles would not b}{\insrsid12014732 e trimmed unless they complied }{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 with our specificati}{\insrsid12014732 ons. The cutting is done under }{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 the supervision of ou}{\insrsid12014732 r staff. It is also true that t}{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 he plates were fixed after trimming.\'94 \line }{\insrsid12014732 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid4278249 {\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 Therefore, following the above evidence, if the Learned Judge had reconsidered and evaluated the evidence as the first appellate Court and subjected it to a fresh and exhaustive scrutiny as required of him, see }{\ul\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 Pandya v R }{ \insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 (supra) }{\ul\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 Selle v Associated Motor Boat Co. }{\insrsid12014732 (supra) he }{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 would not have come to the conclusion he came to that there was written agreement setting out terms of contract. Therefore in view of the above and in view of the admissions by DWI at page }{\i\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 45 }{ \insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 lines 30 \emdash 35 of the record of the proceedings of the appeal, th at the contract between the appellant and respondent was oral, I think that the Learned Judge was not correct to hold that there was a written contract between the parties. Therefore, in my view, Section 90 of the Evidence Act which excludes Oral evidence from being admitted, if it seeks to vary the contents of the agreement, would not be relevant here, when there was no written agreement governing their transaction. \line }{\i\insrsid12014732 \par }{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 The }{\insrsid12014732\charrsid4278249 provision of Section 90 of the Evidence Act reads}{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 in part as follows: \line }{\insrsid12014732 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li720\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid12014732 {\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 \'93When the te}{\insrsid12014732 rms of contract or of grant or }{ \insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 other disposition of property, have }{\insrsid12014732 been reduced to }{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 the form of a document, and no evidence save as mentioned in Se}{\insrsid12014732 ction 78 of this Act, shall be }{ \insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 given in proof of the terms of such contract \line except the document itse}{\insrsid12014732 lf or Secondary evidence is }{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 admissible}{\insrsid12014732 \'85\'94}{ \insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 \line }{\insrsid12014732 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid12014732 {\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 Clearly, therefore, from the entire evidence on record, the contract between the parties was not written. It was an Oral Contract and as such, Section 90 of the Evidence Act was wrongly invoked by the Learned Judge. This, therefore, disposes of grounds 1, 3 and 5 which must succeed. \line }{\insrsid12014732 \par }{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 I must, however, deal with whether or not there was evidence to prove that the appellant supplied 2525 poles to the respondent. It was not disputed by DWI that 2525 poles were supplied b y the appellant. Respondent conceded through DWI that 2525 poles were supplied to them, but argued that only 2300 poles complied with their specification. It was further argued for respondent that shs. 42,925,000/= paid was 85% down\emdash payment on delivery of the poles. \line }{\insrsid12014732 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid4278249 {\insrsid12014732 H}{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 owever, it is noted from Annexture I to the plaint that by 13/3/93 the appellant had delivered a total number of poles amounting to 2525 and the respondent had paid a }{\insrsid12014732 total amount of shs. 42,925,000/}{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 = which was 85% of the total number of poles delivered at shs. 20,000/= per pole, less 15% retention. The 15% retention on 2525 poles at shs. 20,000/= each would leave a balance of shs. 7,575,000/=, unpaid. There was evidence that the poles had been supplied when they were green. They were dried, t rimmed and marked with number plates by the re}{\insrsid12014732 spondent, which according to DW1}{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 \rquote s admission, on page 46 line 27 of the record of the proceedings, meant they had complied with respondent\rquote s specifications and therefore had been }{\insrsid12014732 accepted by the Respondent. \line \par }{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 I think that it would not }{\insrsid12014732 be just and fair to permit the }{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 Respondent to say that 225 poles had not met their specification in Annexture A to the affidavit in support of an application for leave to appear and defend the Suit brought under Order 33 of C. P. R., after the poles had been accepted and altered by trimming them to suit their requirement. Once the poles were trimmed, thus accepted, the contract was complete and poles became the property of Respondent. The sum of shs. 42,925,000/= was very well above 85% of}{\insrsid12014732 2300 poles each at shs. 20,000/}{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 =. In other words 85% of 2300 poles each at shs. 20,}{\insrsid12014732 000/=, would come to shs. 39, l00, 000}{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 /= and 15% retention on those poles would be shs. }{\insrsid12014732 6,900,000/}{\insrsid10316692\charrsid12014732 =. }{\i\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 \line }{\i\insrsid12014732 \par }{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 There is no where it was indicated that in the number of deliveries that 2300 poles were delivered. Annexture A \emdash I disclosed that 2525 poles were delivered and accepted and that 85% thereof pai}{\insrsid12014732 d, amounting to shs. 42,925,000/}{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 =. The balance of 15% on the total number of poles delivered of 2525 would leave a balance}{\insrsid12014732 of shs. 7,575,000/}{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 =. Instead o}{ \insrsid12014732 f the balance of shs. 7,575,000/}{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 = to the appellant, the Respondent paid shs. 3,075,000/= on 15/4/93 as}{\insrsid12014732 reflected on the Summary of Wo}{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 oden Poles supplied, where it is stated that 2300 poles had been supplied, whilst the total number of poles supplied as on 13/3/93 (see Annexture I) was 2525 poles. \line }{\insrsid12014732 \par }{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 There was evidence that all the 2525 poles had been supplied and received, dried, trimmed and marked with respondent\rquote s numbers, which meant that the pies had been accepted. It appea rs from the evidence that the respondent unilaterally decided to retract/revoke the contract by paying shs. 3,075,000/= on allegation that only 2300 poles had been supplied. Appellant demanded the balance of shs. 4,500,000/= from the respondent on the gro und that he had supplied 2525 poles but not 2300 poles. \line }{\insrsid12014732 \par }{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 No doubt, the appellant had sup}{\insrsid12014732 plied 2525 poles to respondent }{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 and the respondent had received t}{\insrsid12014732 hem and accepted them. When he }{ \insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 dried, trimmed and marked them with their numbers, the contract was complete and therefore, the respondent could not retract the \line Contract on the ground that they had had excess poles. In my considered view since the appellant had supplied the poles and respondent had received them and altered their state, when they t rimmed them according to their needs/requirement, they would not be permitted to withdraw or refuse to pay for all the poles supplied. \line }{\insrsid12014732 \par }{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 That disposes of all the remaining grounds of appeal, which also succeed. \line }{\insrsid12014732 \par }{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 In the circumstances, therefore, I would allo w this appeal with costs here and in the Courts below. I would set aside the Judgment and Order of the Learned Judge on Appeal and substitute them with an Order dismissing the Appeal and confirming the Judgment and Orders of the Learned Chief Magistrate. \line }{\insrsid12014732 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid12014732 {\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 Dated at Mengo this}{\insrsid12014732 5}{ \super\insrsid12014732\charrsid12014732 th}{\insrsid12014732 }{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 day of}{\insrsid12014732 Feb}{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 l9}{\insrsid12014732 97.}{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 \line }{\insrsid12014732 \par }\pard \s15\qr \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid12014732 {\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 A. N. Karokora \line }{\ul\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 JUSTICE OF SUPREME COURT. }{\insrsid10316692\charrsid4278249 \line \par }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4278249 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\lang1033\langfe1033\langnp1033\insrsid12014732 5/2/97. Mr. B. Babigumira for the Appellant}{\lang1033\langfe1033\langnp1033\insrsid10825639 \par }{\lang1033\langfe1033\langnp1033\insrsid12014732 \tab Mr. Ocheng Charles for the Respondent \par \tab Mr. Emma Manana Court clerk \par \tab \par Judgment delivered as directed by the Hon. JJSC. \par \tab \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7541028 {\ul\lang1033\langfe1033\langnp1033\insrsid7541028 JUDGEMENT OF ODER, J. S. C.}{\ul\lang1033\langfe1033\langnp1033\insrsid12014732 \par }{\ul\lang1033\langfe1033\langnp1033\insrsid7541028 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7541028 {\lang1033\langfe1033\langnp1033\insrsid7541028 I have had the benefit of reading in draft, the judgment of Karokora, J. S. C. I agree with him that the appeal should succeed. \par \par I have nothing useful to add. \par \par Dated at Mengo this 5}{\lang1033\langfe1033\super\langnp1033\insrsid7541028\charrsid7541028 th}{\lang1033\langfe1033\langnp1033\insrsid7541028 day of Feb 1997. \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7541028 {\lang1033\langfe1033\langnp1033\insrsid7541028 A. H. O. ODER \par }{\ul\lang1033\langfe1033\langnp1033\insrsid7541028 JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT.}{\ul\lang1033\langfe1033\langnp1033\insrsid7541028\charrsid7541028 \par }{\ul\lang1033\langfe1033\langnp1033\insrsid7541028 \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par JUDGMENT OF MANYINDO, D. C. J. \par \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7541028 {\lang1033\langfe1033\langnp1033\insrsid7541028 I read the judgment of Karokora, J. S. C. in draft. I agree with it and as Oder, J. S. C also agreed the appeal is allowed the judgment of Kityo, J allowing the appeal set aside and an order dismissing the appeal substituted therefore. The appellant shall have their costs of this appeal and in the courts below. \par \par DATED at Mengo this 5}{\lang1033\langfe1033\super\langnp1033\insrsid7541028\charrsid7541028 th}{\lang1033\langfe1033\langnp1033\insrsid7541028 day of Feb 1997. \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7541028 {\lang1033\langfe1033\langnp1033\insrsid7541028 S. T. MANYINDO \par }{\ul\lang1033\langfe1033\langnp1033\insrsid7541028 DEPUTY CHIEF JUSTICE}{\ul\lang1033\langfe1033\langnp1033\insrsid7541028\charrsid7541028 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7541028 {\lang1033\langfe1033\langnp1033\insrsid7541028 }{\lang1033\langfe1033\langnp1033\insrsid7541028\charrsid7541028 \par }}