Katamba Godfrey v Lutalo Jordan Nsiridde (Civil Suit No. 194 of 2017) [2025] UGHC 567 (27 March 2025)

### THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT MPIGI CIVIL SUIT NO. 194 OF 2017

KATAMBA GODFREY....................................

**VERSUS**

LUTALO JORDAN NSIRIDDE..................................

# BEFORE: HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE OYUKO ANTHONY OJOK

## Judgment

The plaintiff sued the defendant for orders of specific performance, general 10 damages, interest, costs of the suit for breach of contract and any other appropriate remedy court may deem fit.

It is the plaintiff's case that on the 30<sup>th</sup> January, 2012, he and the defendant executed a land sale agreement wherein he purchased land measuring 1 acre comprised in Mawokota Block 122 Plot 71 land at Kikondo, Katende in Mpigi District at a consideration of UGX 14,000,000/ $=$ . According to the agreement the defendant was to survey the said land and surrender the deed plan of one acre, the signed transfer form, consent transfer form, mutation form and a copy of the letters of administration to the plaintiff. However, the defendant has failed to do so as a result the plaintiff has failed to take possession because of a kibanja claim on the suit land.

The defendant despite being served did not file a Written Statement of Defence or appear in court and the suit proceeded exparte against him.

#### Representation:

Counsel Byekwaso Godfrey appeared for the plaintiff and filed written submissions 25 while the defendant did not appear in court.

#### Issues:

- 1. Whether there was a valid contract of sale of land on the 30<sup>th</sup> January, 2012 between the parties? - 2. Whether there is any breach of the contract by the defendant? - 3. What remedies are available?

#### Resolution:

In civil matters, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff who must prove their case against the defendant on a balance of probabilities. (See: Section 101-103 of the Evidence Act and the case of Miller v. Minister of Pensions (1947) 2 AllER at page 373).

$1$ | Page

Issue 1: Whether there was a valid contract of sale of land on the 30t January, 2012 between the parties?

It is the plaintiff's evidence that on the 30™ January, 2012, he executed a sale " agreement with the defendant for land measuring 1 acre out of 40 acres of land comprised on Mawokota Block 122 Plot 71 at Kikondo, Katende, Mpigi at a consideration at UGX 14,000,000/ = and the purchase of agreement was marked as annexture "A" to the plaintiff's witness statement. That the defendant was possessed with the capacity to sell as an administrator of the estate of Bulega Kazente as evidenced by the letters of administration. The defendant also handed the plaintiff a signed mutation form, transfer form and consent to transfer on an understanding the suit land would be surveyed and the plaintiff would get a title.

A contract is defined under Sections 2 and 10(1) of the Contracts Act, 2010 as;

"An agreement made with the free consentof parfies with capacity fo contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object, with the intention fo be legally bound."

In the case of Greenboat Entertainment Ltd v. City Council of Kampala, HCCS No. 0580 of 2003, a contract was defined as;

"In law, when we falk of a contract, we mean an agrecment enforceable at law. For a confract fo be valid and legally enforceable, there must be capacity fo confract; infention fo confract; consensus ad idem; valuable consideration; legality of purpose; and sufficient certainty of terms. If in a given fransaction any of them Is missing, it could as well be called something other than a contract."

25 In light of the above definitions of what a contract constitutes and what makes it valid, I find that the plaintiff has sufficiently proved to this court that there was a valid contract between him and the defendant. This issue is therefore resolved in the affirmative.

### Issue 2: Whether there is any breach of the contract by the defendant?

30 Counsel submitted that in the instant case that the plaintiff despite meeting his end of the contract, the defendant failed to deliver the certificate of title, deed plans and land free from encumbrances as the said land had bibanja claims. Thus, there was breach of contract.

Breach of contract is defined in Black's Law Dictionary 5% Edition Pg. 171 as; where one party to a contract fails to carry out a term. i p (

2|Page

15|

In the case of Nakana Trading Co. Ltd v. Coffee Marketing Board Civil Suit No.137 of 1991, court defined a breach of contract as where one or both parties fail to fulfill the obligations imposed by the terms of contract and also in the case of Ronald Kasibante v. Shell Uganda Ltd, HCCS No.542 of 2006, breach of contract

was defined as, the breaking of the obligation which a contract imposes which confers a right of action for damages on the injured party.

In the instant case while the plaintiff met his end of the contract as per his evidence, the defendant chose not to. During the locus in quo visit the land was in occupation of a third party and the plaintiff has never had access to the suit land from the time

he bought the same. I find that the defendant is in breach of the contract he executed with the plaintiff. This issue is hereby resolved in the affirmative.

### Issue 3: What remedies are available?

Counsel for the plaintiff relied on Section 33(1) of the Contract Act, 2010 to submit that parties to a contract shall perform or offer to perform their respective promises, unless the performance is dispensed with or excused under this Act or any other law. The plaintiff in the instant case prayed for an order of Specific performance, general damages, interest and costs of the suit.

#### Specific performances:

20 Counsel cited Section 64 (1) of the Contract Act, 2010 on specific performance and the case of Livingstone Mpiima v. Elizabeth Nanteza, HCCS No. 853 of 1989, where it was held that; specific performance is an order of court enjoining the defendant to do exactly what the agreement he made with the plaintiff says. The agreement must be that between the plaintiff and the defendant because court has no power to make an agreement for the parties.

- 25 Counsel prayed that the defendant be ordered to deliver the surveyed deed plans and mother title to the plaintiff as agreed. In the alternative, that the defendant be ordered to pay the equivalent of the value or consideration of one acre at the current market value in the same area which is valued at approximately UGX 120,000,000/ = since the suit land has been developed by a third party. - 30 The plaintiff in the instant case has never occupied the suit land from the time he purchased the same because of third party claims. An order for specific performance in the instant case is not the appropriate remedy since the defendant from the very beginning did not settle the bibanja interests thereon, ordering him to survey the land and deliver a deed plan will not fix the issue at hand. :

3|Pa

I am therefore inclined to grant the plaintiff the alternative prayer of payment by the defendant of the current market value of the suit land upon the plaintiff carrying out proper valuation of the same through the government valuer.

General damages:

The plaintiff prayed for damages to a tune of UGX 50,000,000/= with interest from the date of judgment till payment in full and costs of the suit.

In the case of Hall bothers SS Co. Ltd v. Young, (1939) KB 748 at 756 CA, the court defined damages as; sums which fall to be paid by reason of some breach of duty or obligation, whether the duty or obligation is imposed by contract, or by general

10 law or legislation.

The cardinal principle is that damages are compensatory in nature. It is neither to punish the defendant nor confer a windfall on the plaintiff. It is not also meant to punish the claimant and allow the defendant to go without repairing the actual loss caused to the claimant. (See: Lydia Mugambe v Kayita James & Another HCCS No. 339 of 2020).

In the instant case the plaintiff has not used the suit land since 2012, therefore he has been unable to benefit from his purchase due to the acts of the defendant for over 10 years. In the circumstances I find an award of UGX 10,000,000/= sufficient in this case and do award the same at the court interest rate of 6% per annum from the date of judgment till payment in full.

The plaintiff in the instant case has proved his case on a balance of probability against the defendant. Judgment is hereby entered in favour of the plaintiff. Costs to be borne by the plaintiff. I so order.

OYUKO ANTHONY OJOK

JUDGE

27/03/2025

ale