[1999] UGHC 14

[1999] UGHC 14

The court found that there was no sufficient evidence of a variation to the written contract regarding transport costs. The audit report confirmed that the defendant had paid all sums due under the contract, including sand and transport at the agreed rates. The plaintiff's claim for additional transport costs was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1999] UGHC 14
Parties
Plaintiff: Mujuni Ruhemba; Defendant: Skanska Jensen Int. (U) Ltd
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Civil Suit No. 104 of 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment
Outcome
suit dismissed
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Variation of Contract, Supply of Goods, Contractual Liability
Source Language
en
Commercial and Corporate Breach of Contract Variation of Contract Supply of Goods Contractual 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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mujuni Ruhemba

Plaintiff

Skanska Jensen Int. (U) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the disputed transport cost element as invoiced was accepted by the defendant and whether the defendant was liable to pay for it.
  2. 2 Whether there had been a variation in the terms of the contract in particular regarding transport costs and if so whether the defendant was bound to pay the plaintiff.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there was no sufficient evidence of a variation to the written contract regarding transport costs. The audit report confirmed that the defendant had paid all sums due under the contract, including sand and transport at the agreed rates. The plaintiff's claim for additional transport costs was not supported by the contract or by any admissible evidence of a binding variation. The note authorizing fuel for a truck was an isolated incident and did not constitute a general amendment to the contract terms. Consequently, the plaintiff failed to prove breach of contract or entitlement to the additional sum claimed. The suit was dismissed.

Court Disposition

suit dismissed

Orders

  • Plaintiff's claim for UGX 18,760,130 is dismissed.
  • No order for costs is made.