Ssemawere v African Express Airways (Civil Suit 978 of 2016) [2025] UGCommC 10 (10 January 2025)

# 5 **THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA [COMMERCIAL DIVISION] CIVIL SUIT NO. 0978 OF 2016**

| 10 | OSCAR SSEMAWERE | | ] | PLAINTIFF | |----|-------------------------|--------|---|-----------| | | | VERSUS | | | | | AFRICAN EXPRESS AIRWAYS | | ] | DEFENDANT | | 15 | | | | |

**Before: Hon. Justice Ocaya Thomas O. R**

## **JUDGMENT**

#### 20 **Introduction**

The Plaintiff's claim against the Defendant is for Breach of contract, Recovery of USD 310,384, Special Damages, General damages for the loss of Business and inconvenience; and Costs of the Suit.

- 25 As far as the background of this case, the parties have had a checkered history in the Courts. On the 24th February 2020, a default Judgement was entered in favor of the Plaintiff disposing of the main suit herein and the Defendant was ordered to pay the suit sum herein to the Plaintiff with interest. - 30 The Defendant filed Miscellaneous Application No. 1493 of 2022 seeking to set aside the Judgement entered. Through a Consent Order entered on the 12th December 2022, the Default Judgement was set aside and the Defendant was allowed to file a defense in the main suit hence these proceedings. - 35 The brief facts of the Plaintiff are that the Plaintiff, an aviation consultant in Uganda was appointed on the 20th May 2011 by the Defendant to represent them at Entebbe International Airport station and liaise with the Civil Aviation Authority on their behalf as well as carry on

- 5 the task of being consulted on aviation matters including, the supply of equipment and marketing the Defendant's airline services. That in September 2014, the Defendant ordered and the Plaintiff delivered aviation parts to the Defendant in Nairobi, but Defendant since failed to pay the agreed sum of USD 135,384 which is the suit sum herein. - 10 That the Plaintiff was also instructed to set up an office at his own cost and to handle marketing expenses, all of which the Defendant failed to reimburse. That the Plaintiff also secured 5th Freedom Flight rights from the Civil Aviation Authority on behalf of the Defendant who later terminated the Plaintiff's contract without payment, causing the Plaintiff to suffer General and Special damages. - 15

The Defendant on its part by Written Statement of Defence denied the Plaintiff's averments and contended that the Plaintiff has *no locus standi* to bring this suit since it was not a party to the agreement between the Defendant and Sema Aviation Services.

- 20 The Defendant averred that on the 20th May 2011, the Plaintiff was introduced to the Director General of Civil Aviation Authority (Uganda) as Station Manager on an acting basis and that any offices opened by the Plaintiff were for his personal benefit and the Defendant is not liable for the same. That any supposed consultation and supply of equipment would be beyond the scope of the Defendant's appointment. - 25

Further that in August 2016, the Defendant formalized their relationship with Sema Aviation Services Limited and that despite novation, less than two months after the signing contract with Sema Aviation Services Limited, the contract was breached by Sema Aviation Services and as a result the Defendant terminated the contract which information is within the 30 knowledge of the Plaintiff. While Sema Aviation Services is indebted to the Defendant to the tune of USD 18,500 which is unpaid.

## **Representation:**

The Plaintiff was represented by the law firm of M/s Mushanga and Associates Solicitors and

35 Advocates whereas the Defendant was represented by the law firm of Nuwajuna Associated Advocates.

#### 5 **Evidence:**

contract (PEX Y).

The Plaintiff adduced one witness, himself, and led his evidence in chief by way of a witness statement which was admitted on court record as PW1. Plaintiff adduced a Trial bundle and an additional one wherein he exhibited Nine documents in the initial bundle namely, an Appointment Letter dated 30th Marc 2011 (PEX 1), Email correspondences for orders of

- 10 assorted avionic/aviation parts (PEX 2), Aircraft Manifest documents(PEX 3), Delivery documents (PEX 4), Notifications of 5th freedom rights dated 5th May 2016 (PEX 5), Office Rent related documents (PEX 6), Office Expenses related documents (PEX 7), Advertising Expense documents (PEX 8) and Bank Statements (PEX 9). - 15 In the additional trial bundle, the Plaintiff exhibited documents namely Receipts from Springs International Hotel Ltd (PEX B1 - B58), Receipts for Civil Aviation Authority (PEX C1 – C3), Receipts for Nash Supplies (U) Ltd (PEX D1 – D3), Receipts for Foris Telecom (PEX E1 – E3), Receipts for DAS Handling Ltd (PEX F), Receipts for Larkspur Services (PEX G), Receipts for Charsay & Baltosh (PEX H1 – H23), Receipts for Ricktech Consults (PEX - 20 I), Receipts for Sax Uganda Ltd (PEX J1 J3), Receipts for Top Trade Distributors (PEX K), Receipts for Sanyu F. M(2000) Ltd (PEX L1 – L7), Receipts for New Vision Ltd (PEX M1 – M2), Receipts for Red Pepper (PEX N1 – N5), Receipts for CBS FM (PEX O), Receipts for Mavleens Ltd ( PEX P1 – P3), Email extract dated 16th Sept 2014 (PEX Q), Email extract dated 23rd November 2015 (PEX R), Email extract dated 30th March 2015 (PEX S), Email extract dated 02nd August 2016 (PEX T), Email extract dated 14th 25 September 2016 (PEX U), Email extract dated 14th September 2015 (PEX V), Email extract dated 21st November 2016 (PEX W), Documents of accepted goods supplied (PEX X) and Email extract terminating the - 30 The Defendant having had the default Judgment set aside, filed their Written Statement of Defense. They however did not take any other action thereafter nor did they appear in defense of the claim. The matter subsequently proceeded ex parte but with their Written Statement of Defense on record and considered. This is a trite position that the parties in civil matters are bound by their pleadings which have the potential of forming the record - 35 and moreover, the court itself is also bound by what the parties have stated in their pleadings


5 as to the facts relied on by them. see *Jani Properties Ltd V Dar es Salaam City Council [1966] EA 281*; and *Struggle (U) Ltd V Pan African Insurance Co. Ltd [1990] ALR 46-47.*

#### **Issues:**

The following issues were arrived at for the Court's consideration.

- 10 1. Whether the Plaintiff has locus to bring this suit against the Defendant? 2. Whether there was a contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant for the supply of assorted avionic parts? - 3. Whether the defendant breached the aforesaid contract? - 4. Whether the defendant is liable to re-imburse the Plaintiff for the costs incurred while - 15 representing the defendant and its interests in Uganda? - 5. What are the available remedies to the parties?

#### **Decision:**

**Issue 1**: Whether the Plaintiff has locus to bring this suit against the Defendant?

20 Despite the fact that the Defendant did not proceed to prosecute their case other than filing their defense, it is still the principle in civil proceedings, that the burden of proof lies upon the party who alleges and the said party must prove their case on a balance of probabilities if they are to obtain the remedies sought. See *Lord Denning in Miller versus Minister of Pensions (1947)2 ALL ER 372 on page 373*. See *Section 101 and Section 103 of the* 25 *Evidence Act*.

However, the Defendant raised a Preliminary objection in their defense on the Plaintiff's *Locus standi* in this matter. It is trite law that where a Preliminary objection or point of law is raised, which can be raised at any stage of the case in writing or orally; it is pertinent that

30 the Court scrutinize the point of law raised especially if it is a matter of *locus standi*, the merits of the case cannot be looked into lest the Court is bound to erroneously condemn the wrong party or endorse the benefit of the case to an underserving party. In doing so, the Court is to look into the Pleadings and other relevant documents on record to ascertain the propriety of the objection raised.

- 5 The case of *Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Co. Ltd V West End Distributors Ltd (1969) EA 696* assigned meaning to Preliminary Objection to consist of an error on the face of the pleadings which rise by clear implication out of the pleadings and which if argued as a preliminary objection may dispose of the suit. - 10 The term *locus standi* simply means a place of standing and the right to appear in court and to say one has no *locus standi* is to say that the party has no right to appear in court in respect of the claim or matter in court. See *Njau and others V City Council of Nairobi [1976 – 1985] 1 EA 397.* - 15 Therefore, for a party to have *locus standi*, he or she must have "sufficient interest" in the subject matter of the case and the said interest must not be remote or a merely technical interest, it must be an actual interest. *See Dima Dominic Poro V Inyani and Another Civil Appeal No. 0017 of 2016*, - 20 *Locus standi* in principle is interlinked with cause of action although the objection of the two can be raised and sustained separately because to have a *locus standi*, a party must show that he or she enjoyed a right and is entitled; that the right has been violated; and that the Defendant is liable. The said right must be actual and not a hypothetical or academic case. See *Tororo Cement Co. Ltd V Frokina International Ltd Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2001.*

In this instant case, the Defendant in paragraphs 6 (c), (d), (e), and 10 stated that they entered into a contract with Sema Aviation Services Limited, a corporate body, and not with the Plaintiff in his person. That the terminated contract which is the genesis of this suit was against Sema Aviation Services Limited and the only Notice of Intention to sue was authored

30 on behalf of Sema Aviation Services Limited.

Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the Plaintiff in paragraphs 2, 5, and 10 of the Plaintiff's evidence in chief, the Plaintiff stated that he was appointed as the Defendant's representative in Uganda and adduced PEX A which is a letter from the Defendants 35 addressed to the Civil Aviation Authority introducing the Plaintiff, Mr. Ssemawere Oscar as

5 the individual fully responsible for the Defendants operation in Entebbe Station and the liaison Uganda CAA for all their movements and coordination as African Express Airways. My understanding of the Defendant's objection is that the Plaintiff as an individual is separate from Sema Aviation Services Limited which I believe is owned by the Plaintiff under the universal principle of corporate identity and the doctrine of corporate legal personality

10 of a company. See *Salmon V Salmon (1879) A. C 22.*

However, the burden of proof lies on the Defendant to prove that the Plaintiff is a separate entity from Sema Aviation Services Limited. See *Lord Denning in Miller versus Minister of Pensions (supra)*. *See Section 101 and Section 103 of the Evidence Act*.

The Defendant made an allegation that was rebutted by the Plaintiff thereby shifting the burden on the Defendant to challenge the Plaintiff's rebuttal which the Defendant due to its inaction to prosecute the case leaves the Plaintiff's claim that is buttressed by the adduced evidence on record of the appointment letter in "PEX A" unchallenged. The principle is that 20 any averment on oath that is neither denied nor rebutted is admitted as the true fact. See *Massa V Achen [1978] HCB 279.*

In light of the foregoing, I am inclined to agree with the Plaintiff that he was in fact appointed by the Defendant and as such, he has a right to appear in court in this case.

The Preliminary Objection fails.

# **Issues 2 and 3:**

25 I shall proceed to resolve issue 2 on whether there existed a contract and whether the Defendant breached the aforesaid contract concurrently since the finding in issue 2 informs the outcome in issue 3.

Section 10 of the Contracts Act provides that a contract is an agreement made with the free consent of parties with the capacity to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful

30 object, with the intention to be legally bound. See also Section 2.

5 In the case of *Green Boat Entertainment Ltd Vs City Council of Kampala H-C-C-S No. 0580 of 2003* court defined a contract as;

"*In law, when we talk of a contract, we mean an agreement enforceable at law. For a contract to be valid and legally enforceable, there must be capacity to contract; intention to contract; consensus and idem; valuable consideration; legality of purpose; and sufficient certainty of*

10 *terms. If in a given transaction any of them is missing, it could as well be called something other than a contract".*

As stated in the earlier finding of the Preliminary Objection, the Plaintiff adduced PEX A which is the unrebutted evidence of an appointment letter to act for and on behalf of the 15 Plaintiff and this shows that the parties had an engagement where the Plaintiff was the representative of the Defendant at the Entebbe station and the same was addressed to a third party, Civil Aviation Authority by the Defendant.

This is a strong suggestion that there existed a contract between the Plaintiff and the 20 Defendant where the Plaintiff was to act for the Defendant and this in my view on a balance of probability shows that the Plaintiff has proven his claim of the existence of a contract. Further, most of the Plaintiff's claim for the existence of the said contract is that the Defendant on several occasions instructed him to buy assorted aircraft parts and enter into arrangements including renting office places for the Defendant. The Defendant in paragraph

25 8 of their written statement of defense denied the allegations and stated that the Plaintiff acquired and entered into those engagements at his own volition and for his personal use not on the instruction of the Defendant or for the Defendant's use on their air crafts.

The Plaintiff in his witness statement in paragraphs 10, 12, 14, and 18 stated that in 2014 he 30 received an email containing an order for specific parts for a CRJ 200 aircraft that were needed by the Defendant on an urgent basis whereupon the Defendant dispatched funds and purchased the items and adduced PEX Q with the itemized parts that he purchased on the Defendant's instructions.

- 5 Further that in May 2016 he received a similar request informing him that the Defendant was sourcing for parts and on the 23rd May 2016, he contacted the Defendant with an offer for the parts and he was informed by Mr. Geofrrey Bwire who confirmed to him to go ahead and purchase the parts. The Plaintiff adduced the evidence of the email trails in PEX T and that he was informed that the payment to reimburse him would be made in four different - 10 installments and adduced the evidence in PEX U.

I have addressed my mind on the evidence adduced and the Defendant's failure to rebut the claims which leaves them as admitted facts and the fact shows as I have found earlier herein that the Plaintiff carried out tasks on the Defendant's instructions some of which he was paid 15 for and some he is yet to be paid for.

In the premises, I find that there existed a contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. Having found there existed a contract between the parties, the question of whether the Defendant breached the same is left for resolution. *Black's Law Dictionary 5th Edition Page*

20 *171* defines breach of contract to mean where one party to a contract fails to carry out a term.

In *Ronald Kasibante v. Shell Uganda Ltd Civil Suit No. 542 of 2006*, Honorable Justice Hellen Obura (*as she then was*) defined breach of contract as:

- 25 *"The Breaking of the obligation which a contract imposes which confers a right a right of action for damages on the injured party. It entitles him to treat the contract as discharged if the other Party renounces the contract or makes the performance impossible or substantially fails to perform his promise; the victim is left suing for damages, treating the contract as discharged or seeking a discretionary remedy."* - 30

In paragraphs 21 and 22 of the Plaintiff's witness statement, he stated that his claim is USD 123,384.03 being the outstanding amount owed by the Defendant for the goods he supplied despite the Defendant's undertaking to pay which they have remained adamant about and have completely refused to pay.

- 5 Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff in four equal installments for the supply of assorted avionic parts and that despite the Plaintiff having fulfilled his obligation, the Defendant breached the contract by refusing to pay the outstanding balance of USD 123,384.03 from the received avionic parts in 2016. - 10 The foregoing averments being uncontested, in my view, shows the Plaintiff has proved the Defendant's breach on a balance of probability and I find that the Defendant breached the agreement they had with the Plaintiff. In conclusion, there existed a contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and the Defendant breached the contract. - 15 Issues 2 and 3 are found in the affirmative for the Plaintiff.

**Issue 4:** Whether the defendant is liable to reimburse the Plaintiff for the costs incurred while representing the defendant and its interests in Uganda?

- 20 The Paragraphs 2 and 6 of his witness statement stated that the Defendant upon his appointment in PEX A was instructed to obtain office space for the Defendant's office and he proceeded and found office space at Shumuk House on Colville Road and set up the office and he made rental payments to Springs International Hotel Limited the entity that managed Shumuk House. - 25

Further, in addition, he also promoted the Defendant company where he approached different radio stations and media houses in a bid to publicize the company and adduced PEX B1 – PEX B3 which are receipts of payments made to several media establishments.

30 Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the Plaintiff on occasions acted as the Defendant's appointed agent and cited Section 177 of the Contracts Act which defines an agent to mean a person employed by a principal to do any act for the principal or to represent the principal in dealing with a third person.

Counsel also cited Section 155 of the Contracts Act which provides that: -

35 (1) A principal shall indemnify an agent against the consequences of all lawful acts done by the agent in the exercise of the authority conferred upon that agent,

5 (2) Where a principal employs an agent to do an act and the agent does the act in good faith, the principal is liable to indemnify the agent against loss, liability, and the consequences of that act, although it may affect the rights of a third person.

Webb C. J observed in *Alexander Logios V Attorney General of Nigeria (1970) NCLR page 130* observed that: -

10 It was settled that an agent may be appointed or his authority conferred by word of mouth save where only he is appointed to execute an instrument under seal on behalf of his principal.

In the instant case, I am inclined to agree with the Plaintiff that he was appointed under PEX

- 15 A to act for and further the Defendant's business establishment in Uganda and received instructions to do actions in furtherance of his duty to the Defendant's business where on occasions he has had to use his own money with the assurance to be reimbursed by the principal. - 20 Again, the Defendant's inaction and or failure to prosecute their defense has left the Plaintiff's averments uncontested and his evidence as admitted facts. Therefore, the Plaintiff is entitled to all the payments that he can evidentiary prove he made in furtherance of the business.

Issue 4 is held in the affirmative.

**Issue 5**: What remedies are available to the parties? The Plaintiff prayed for the recovery of USD 123,384.03, General damages, Specific damages, and the Costs of the Suit.

30 *Recovery of USD 123, 384.03*

Having found that the Defendant breached the contract by not paying the Plaintiff USD 123,384.03 for the avionic parts supplied by the Plaintiff in May 2016, the Plaintiff is hereby entitled to recover USD 123,384.03.

35 *Special Damages:*

5 The Plaintiff prayed for special damages and in paragraph 5 of the amended Plaint he particularized them as follows: -

| Item | Amount (USD) | |-------------------------------|--------------| | Office set up and rent | 40,000 | | Marketing and goodwill | 85,000 | | Securing rights | 10,000 | | Projecting income for 4 years | 40,000 | | Equipment procured | 135,384 | | TOTAL | 310,384 |

In *Mugabi John V. Attorney General C. S No. 133 of 2022*, special damages were defined as those damages that relate to past loss calculable at the date of trial and encompass past 10 expenses and loss earnings that arise out of special circumstances of a particular case.

- Special damages must be strictly proved where evidence adduced in proving them must show particularity in accordance with the pleadings, and the claim must also be based upon precise calculations. - 15 The Plaintiff in paragraph 26 of his evidence in chief said that he claims the sum of UGX 25,416,850/= and USD 154,435.03 in Special damages, however, the summation of the claim in Dollars in the pleadings as tabulated above and in the evidence in chief does not tally up further, the Plaintiff adduced evidence of his expenditure on setting up the office between November 2012 and October 2016 in PEX B to PEX P which all sums up to only USD 21,975 - 20 and UGX 3,330,000/= spent towards stationaries, Telecom services, Company Identity cards, Das Handling services for importations, Company Tee Shirts, Company Sign Posts, Company Calendars, Company posters, Company envelops, Company Golf Tournament posters, Company Banners and Pull up posters, luggage stickers, Company Tickets, Corporate shirts, Media Advertisements (2 Radio stations and 2 Newspapers) and 5th Freedom rights from the - 25 Civil Aviation Authority.

- 5 Given the principle governing the award of special damages is that they must be specifically pleaded and proved. However, in some instances, they need not always be proved by production of documentary evidences. Cogent verbal evidence can also do. See *Kampala City Council V Nakaye (1972) EA 446.* - 10 The foregoing principle when applied to the facts of this case, whereas the Plaintiff pleaded and adduced evidence of his past expenditures, the contradiction in total summation of the amounts pleaded and the summation in the evidence adduced, in my opinion leaves Court with one logical conclusion that the actual expenses incurred warranting award of special damages in this case are those only proven; this is arrived at with the consideration to the 15 exception which the general principle which however, comes in when the circumstances of - the expenditures can be deduced that documentary evidence might have been unlikely to obtain.

In this instant case, the Plaintiff adduced numerous receipts but did not provide any cogent 20 verbal submission for the absence of the others to make the total amount claimed. Further, item 4 of particularized expenditures in prayer for special damages is "projecting income for 4 years" This is an anticipatory gain and not a past expenditure in requisite of special damages.

- 25 The Plaintiff has adduced evidence of payment receipts of expenditures made in US Dollars and Ugandan Shillings currency which have not been contested by the Plaintiff and in my view, the Plaintiff has on a balance of probability proved only the personal expenditures sufficient to warrant the grant of the proven specific damages. - 30 In the premises, the Plaintiff is only awarded USD 21,975 and UGX 3,330,000/= in special damages.

## *General Damages:*

*Black's Law Dictionary 9th Edition page 445* defines damages as the sum of money which 35 a person wronged is entitled to receive from the wrongdoer as compensation for the wrong. It is trite law that damages are the direct probable consequence of the act complained of. See 5 *Storms versus Hutchinson (1905) AC 515.* The consequence varies from a loss of profit to physical, inconvenience, mental distress, pain, and suffering. See **Section 61(1)** of the Contracts Act, 2010.

## In *Haji Asuman Mutekanga versus Equator Growers (U) Ltd. SCCA NO. 7 of 1995,* **Oder**

10 **JSC, held that;** *'With regard to proof, general damages in a breach of contract are what a Court (or jury) may award when the Court cannot point out any measure by which they are to be assessed, except in the opinion and judgment of a reasonable man'.*

The Plaintiff in his paragraph 27 that he is perplexed that the Defendant is alleging to and 15 called him a fraud despite them being the one that owes him money and has refused to pay him and in paragraph 26 of his witness statement stated that he is entitled to UGX 200,000,000/= in general damages.

- General damages is given at the Court's discretion and should not be used to serve any other 20 function; neither should the Plaintiff be unjustly enriched under the guise of an award of damages nor should the Defendant be unjustly punished under the same guise. As such despite finding that the Defendant is in breach of the contract and caused the Plaintiff anguish in chasing his payments, especially after using his own money to acquire the avionic parts for the Plaintiff, on the Plaintiff's instructions and then had his contract terminated - 25 whilst still being owed by the Defendant, however, UGX 200,000,000/= is excessive which if converted is about half the outstanding amount owed and in my view is unjust in terms of General damages. Nonetheless, I am inclined to award the Plaintiff UGX 50,000,000/=, which I find is a just and fair compensation for all the loss, inconveniences, and anguish caused by the Defendant. **See Kyambadde v. Mpigi District Administration [1983] HCB 44;** - 30 **Kampala District Land Board & George Mitala Vs Venansio Babweyana, Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2007**

Therefore, the Plaintiff is awarded UGX 50,000,000/= in General damages.


#### 5 *Interest:*

**Section 26(2) of the Civil Procedure Act**, provides for the awarding of interests by the Court at its discretion. Bart Katurabe [Chief Justice Emeritus] in principles Guiding awarding of Damages quoted a passage of Order, JSC in *Premchandra Shenoi & Anor V. Maximov Oleg Petrovich, SCCA No. 9 of 2003*: -

- 10 *"In considering what rate of interest the respondent should have been awarded in the instant case, I agree that the principle applied by this Court in Sietco V. Noble Builders (U) Ltd SCCA No. 31 of 1995, to the effect that it is a matter of the Court's discretion is applicable. The basis of awarding of interest is that the Defendant has taken and used the Plaintiff's money and benefited from it".* - 15

In the instant case, the Defendant having failed to honor the contract to reimburse the Plaintiff the amount of USD 123,384.03 for the avionic parts supplied by the Plaintiff and, I find it more probable than not that they benefitted from keeping the money at the Plaintiff's detriment and in the premises considering the inflation rate and the foreign exchange rate

20 over the years from 2016, I find that the interest rate of 12% from May 2016 being the time the suit amount crystalized to be just and fair to reimburse the Plaintiff's unjust deprivation of his money.

Therefore, I award the Plaintiff interest of 12% on the USD 123, 384.03 as well as the 25 awarded claim of USD 21,975 and UGX 3,330,000/= in special damages from the date of filing the suit in May 2016 until payment in full.

In the same vein, the court exercises its discretion to not award interest on the General damages in the rationale that the awarded sum of UGX 50,000,000/= is sufficient enough to 30 make good of any damages incurred by the Plaintiff.

#### *Costs:*

**Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act** provides that costs follow the suit unless there is a strong reason to suggest the contrary and are awarded at the Court's discretion. See *Harry*

# 5 *Ssempa V Kamabagambire David HCCS 408 of 2014 and Lyamuleme David V. AG SCCA No. 4 of 2013*

In the instant case, the Plaintiff would not have brought this matter to the Court had Defendant simply performed its contractual obligation or adhered to his demands for

10 payment thereafter. As such, I award the Plaintiff the costs of the suit against the Defendant.

## **In conclusion:**

I accordingly make the following orders,

- 15 a) There was a contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. - b) There was a breach of contract by the Defendant. - c) The Plaintiff is entitled to recover USD 123,384.03 being money owed for the avionic parts supplied by the Plaintiff to the Defendant. - d) The Plaintiff is also entitled to recover USD 21,975 and UGX 3,330,000/= in special - 20 damages from the Defendant. - e) The Plaintiff is awarded General damages of UGX 50,000,000/=. - f) Interest of 12% per annum on (c) and (d) above from the date of filing the suit in May 2016 until payment in full. - g) The Plaintiff is awarded the costs of the suit against the Defendant.

I so order.

**Dated** this \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ day of \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_2025, delivered electronically and uploaded on **ECCMIS.** 10th January


**Judge**

**10th** 35 **January, 2025**.