[2002] UGCA 1

[2002] UGCA 1

The Court of Appeal found that the written contract for the supply of sand was not validly varied, as the law requires any variation of a written contract for goods exceeding two hundred shillings to be in writing. The appellant failed to produce written evidence of such variation, and oral testimony was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2002] UGCA 1
Parties
Appellant: Mujuni Ruhemba; Respondent: Skanska Jensen (U) Ltd
Court
Court of Appeal of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Civil Appeal No. 56 of 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal_allowed_in_part
Legal Topics
Contract Variation, Breach of Contract, Auditor Evidence, Transportation Costs, Costs Award
Source Language
en
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Contract Variation Breach of Contract Auditor Evidence Transportation Costs Costs Award

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mujuni Ruhemba

Appellant

Skanska Jensen (U) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the written contract for supply of sand was validly varied to increase the transport charges.
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in relying on the auditor's report without cross-examination.
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge properly evaluated the evidence regarding the alleged contract variation.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal found that the written contract for the supply of sand was not validly varied, as the law requires any variation of a written contract for goods exceeding two hundred shillings to be in writing. The appellant failed to produce written evidence of such variation, and oral testimony was insufficient. The auditor's report was accepted by both parties, as neither sought cross-examination, and it established that the respondent had discharged its contractual obligations except for invoices issued for deliveries made from September 1-8, 1998, which were not covered in the report. The trial judge was correct in dismissing the claim for increased transport charges, but erred...

Court Disposition

appeal_allowed_in_part

Orders

  • The trial judge, with the assistance of the court appointed auditor, shall determine the rightful amount due to the appellant for sand delivered between September 1-8, 1998 to be paid to him.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.