Download

Uganda Judgment

Commercial Court of Uganda

Sajjabi v Heng Rong International Limited (Civil Suit 991 of 2020) [2022] UGCommC 188 (29 September 2022)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court found that the defendant breached the agreement by failing to pay the principal sum of USD 175,000 within the stipulated time. Clause 6 of the agreement expressly provided for a 50% interest surcharge in the event of breach. The court held that, since the parties had freely agreed to this term, it was enforceable. The court also relied on the Partial Consent Judgment, which stated that costs follow the cause, and awarded costs to the plaintiff. The court emphasized its duty to enforce contract terms as agreed by the parties and found no reason to deny the plaintiff the agreed interest and costs.

Court disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff.

Orders

  • The defendant shall pay the plaintiff interest of 50% on the sum of USD 175,000.
  • The defendant shall pay the costs of the suit to the plaintiff.

02

Material facts

Parties

Fred Kizza Sajjabi

Plaintiff Counsel: Counsel for the Plaintiff

Heng Rong International Limited

Defendant Counsel: Counsel for the Defendant

Amounts and remedies

  • Principal Sum: USD 175,000
  • Interest (50% Surcharge): USD 87,500

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Civil Suit / Judgment

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The plaintiff argued that the defendant failed to pay the agreed sum of USD 175,000 within the stipulated time under the agreement dated 4/9/2017, and that Clause 6 of the agreement entitled the plaintiff to a surcharge of 50% interest on the monies paid due to the defendant's breach. The plaintiff also sought costs as per the Partial Consent Judgment, which provided that costs follow the cause.
Respondent
The defendant did not appear and no argument or explanation was provided for their absence. No submissions were made on their behalf.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Roko Construction v AG, Civil Suit 517/2005

    Interest can only be claimed if it is based on an agreement or by statute.

  2. 02

    General contract law principles

    Courts must enforce contract terms freely agreed to by the parties.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court found that the defendant breached the agreement by failing to pay the principal sum of USD 175,000 within the stipulated time. Clause 6 of the agreement expressly provided for a 50% interest surcharge in the event of breach. The court held that, since the parties had freely agreed to this term, it was enforceable. The court also relied on the Partial Consent Judgment, which stated that costs follow the cause, and awarded costs to the plaintiff. The court emphasized its duty to enforce contract terms as agreed by the parties and found no reason to deny the plaintiff the agreed interest and costs.

Obiter and limits

  • Courts are bound to enforce contract terms that parties have freely entered into unless there is a compelling reason not to do so.

Court disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff.

  • The defendant shall pay the plaintiff interest of 50% on the sum of USD 175,000.
  • The defendant shall pay the costs of the suit to the plaintiff.

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

[2022] UGCommC 188

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA (COMMERCIAL DIVISION)

CIVIL SUIT NO. 991 OF 2020

FRED KIZZA SAJJABI ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

VERSUS

HENG RONG INTERNATIONAL LIMITED ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

BEFORE: HON. LADY JUSTICE ANNA B. MUGENYI JUDGMENT

I have listened to the submissions of the counsel of the Plaintiff who sought court's permission to proceed in the absence of Counsel for the Defendant with whom it had been agreed to attend Court on 28/9/2022; but the said Counsel did not attend Court as agreed and neither was an explanation for his absence given to the Court or counsel for the Plaintiff. Court granted Counsel for the Plaintiff to proceed as prayed.

The main issue for the Court's determination, the parties having entered a partial consent to the principal amount of USD 175,000 being paid by the Defendant; is whether the Plaintiff is entitled to interest and costs as prayed.

As properly guided by the Counsel for the Plaintiff; the general rule is that interest can only be claimed if it is based on an agreement or by statute as held in Roko Construction v AG, Civil Suit 517/2005.

I have had the opportunity to look at the agreement between the parties dated $4/9/2017$ . Clause 6 of the said agreement provides that:

"In case of any loss or damage caused or suffered by the buyer as a result of this sale or breach of this agreement, the seller agrees to indemnify the buyer in totality with a surcharge of 50% interest of the monies paid to him by the buyer. Likewise the same rule shall be enjoyed by the vendor in case of breach by the purchaser."

According to the Partial Consent Judgment endorsed by all the parties, the Defendant paid the principal sum of USD 175,000 sometime in April or May 2022, though Clause 3

$\mathbf{1}$

$\sqrt{ }$

of the agreement in issue all payments were supposed to be made by 411012017. Clearly the Defendant did not comply with the terms of the agreement and is liable to pay a surcharge of 50% interest on the monies paid to the vendor by the purchaser as agreed by the parties.

In the circumstance, this court will award interest of 50% on the sum of USD 175,000 paid by the Defendant to the Plaintift during April/May 2022.

With regard to the payment of the costs; according to Clause 3 of the Partial Consent Judgment, the pafties agreed that the costs follow the cause.

The duty of this Court is to enforce contract terms freely agreed to by the parties; and I have no reason to deny the Plaintiff costs of the suit that have been agreed on by the parties themselves. In the premises; costs follow the event as agreed and the same are awarded to the Plaintiff.

.f- ) .......il.1\*h^

I

o

HON. LADY JUSTICE ANNA B. MUGENYI DATED t..fl..t.+.t....

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.

Roko Construction v AG, Civil Suit 517/2005

Case cited

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.