Download

Uganda Judgment

Commercial Court of Uganda

City Oil (U) Ltd v Roko Construction Ltd (Civil Suit No. 1086 of 2020) [2021] UGCommC 101 (3 September 2021)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The evidence on record established that the defendant owed the plaintiff Ugx 237,600,000 for fuel supplied. The defendant did not challenge the debt, and its application for leave to appear and defend was dismissed for lack of triable issues. The court found no justification for withholding judgment and ordered payment of the debt, interest, and costs.

Court disposition

judgment for the plaintiff

Orders

  • The defendant shall pay the plaintiff Ugx 237,600,000.
  • Interest at 6% per annum is imposed on the sum from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • The defendant shall pay the costs of the suit.

02

Material facts

Parties

City Oil (U) Ltd

Plaintiff

Roko Construction Ltd

Defendant

Amounts and remedies

  • Principal Debt: UGX 237,600,000

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Civil Suit / Judgment

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The plaintiff supplied fuel worth Ugx 237,600,000 to the defendant, who failed to pay. Cheques issued by the defendant were dishonoured, and subsequent payment proposals were not honoured. The plaintiff demanded payment, which was ignored, necessitating this suit.
Respondent
The defendant did not challenge the debt and failed to disclose any triable issues in its application for leave to appear and defend, which was dismissed.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    General principles of contract law.

    A party that receives goods and fails to pay as agreed is liable for the debt incurred.

  2. 02

    Civil Procedure Rules and summary judgment practice.

    Where a debt is not challenged and evidence supports the claim, judgment may be entered for the plaintiff.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The evidence on record established that the defendant owed the plaintiff Ugx 237,600,000 for fuel supplied. The defendant did not challenge the debt, and its application for leave to appear and defend was dismissed for lack of triable issues. The court found no justification for withholding judgment and ordered payment of the debt, interest, and costs.

Court disposition

judgment for the plaintiff

  • The defendant shall pay the plaintiff Ugx 237,600,000.
  • Interest at 6% per annum is imposed on the sum from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • The defendant shall pay the costs of the suit.

Source and reliance status

Commercial Court of Uganda

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Source document

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Commercial Court of Uganda

Judgment

[2021] UGCommC 101

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

[COMMERCIAL DIVISION]

Civil Suit No.1086 of 2020

CITY OIL (U) LTD :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::-PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

ROKO CONSTRUCTION LTD::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::DEFENDANTS

BEFORE; HON. JUSTICE DUNCAN GASWAGA

JUDGMENT

[1] This is a judgment on a claim for recovery of a liquidated sum of Ugx 237,600,000/= (Uganda Shillings Two Hundred Thirty Seven Million Six Hundred Thousand Only) and for costs of the suit. The cause of action arose as follows; the plaintiff in November and December 2019 the parties agreed for the plaintiff to supply fuel to the defendant and the plaintiff supplied fuel to the defendant to the tune of Ushs. 237,600,000 as agreed. The defendant was required to pay for the fuel but defaulted. The defendant issued cheques towards the clearing of the outstanding fuel debt but the same were dishonoured upon being

presented for payment. The defendant later presented a payment proposal dated 23/10/2020 which was accepted by the plaintiff on 28/10/2020. Thereafter, the plaintiff through her lawyers issued a demand for payment of the outstanding debt which the defendant received and ignored, the reason for this suit.

- [2] It should be noted that the defendants filed M. A No. 40 of 2021 for leave to appear and defend which was later on 03/09/2021 dismissed for failure to disclose any triable issues warranting grant of the same. - [3] <sup>I</sup> have had opportunity once again to peruse the pleadings. <sup>I</sup> find that the evidence on record clearly establishes a debt of Ugx 237,600,000/= (Uganda Shillings Two Hundred Thirty Seven Million Six Hundred Thousand Only) owed by the defendants. The debt is not challenged. - [4] Accordingly, <sup>I</sup> hereby enterjudgment against the defendant in the following terms; - a) that the defendant pays to the plaintiff a sum of Ugx 237,600,000/= (Uganda Shillings Two Hundred Thirty Seven Million Six Hundred Thousand Only) - b) that an interest rate of 6% is hereby imposed on the sum in (a) above to apply from the date of Judgment till payment in full. - c) costs of the suit be paid by the defendant.

Dated, signed and delivered this 3rd day of September, 2021

Duncan swaga

JUDGE

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

No structured authorities are available for this judgment.

Refer to the full judgment and official source for citations that have not yet been extracted.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this JurisAssist collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.