Download

Uganda Judgment

Commercial Court of Uganda

Sempijja v Roko Construction Ltd (Civil Suit No. 1100 of 2020) [2021] UGCommC 78 (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 clearly establishes that the defendant owes the plaintiff Ugx 581,128,142 for transport services rendered. The defendant did not challenge the debt, and their application for leave to appear and defend was dismissed for lack of triable issues. Therefore, judgment is entered for the plaintiff for the claimed sum and costs.

Court disposition

Judgment entered for the plaintiff.

Orders

  • The defendant shall pay the plaintiff Ugx 581,128,142.
  • The defendant shall pay the costs of the suit.

02

Material facts

Parties

Adam Ssempijja

Plaintiff

Roko Construction Ltd

Defendant

Amounts and remedies

  • Principal Sum Awarded: UGX 581,128,142

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Civil Suit / Judgment

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The plaintiff claims that he provided transport services of aggregate stones to the defendant between January 2013 and August 2020, issued invoices totaling Ugx 3,817,765,404, and received partial payments amounting to Ugx 3,236,637,262, leaving an outstanding balance of Ugx 581,128,142. Despite several demands, the defendant has refused to pay the balance.
Respondent
The defendant did not challenge the debt and failed to disclose any triable issues in their application for leave to appear and defend, which was dismissed.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    General principles of contract law and debt recovery.

    A party who receives services and does not dispute the invoiced amount is liable to pay the outstanding sum.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The evidence on record clearly establishes that the defendant owes the plaintiff Ugx 581,128,142 for transport services rendered. The defendant did not challenge the debt, and their application for leave to appear and defend was dismissed for lack of triable issues. Therefore, judgment is entered for the plaintiff for the claimed sum and costs.

Court disposition

Judgment entered for the plaintiff.

  • The defendant shall pay the plaintiff Ugx 581,128,142.
  • 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 78

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

[COMMERCIAL DIVISION]

Civil Suit No.1130 of 2020

ADAM SSEMPIJJA ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::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 581,128,142/= (Uganda Shillings Five Hundred Eighty One Million, One Hundred Twenty Eight Thousand, One Hundred Forty Two) and for costs of the suit. The cause of action arose as follows; the defendant engaged the plaintiff to offer transport services of aggregate stones from its quarry in Bukerere to the batch plant at Nasser road in Kampala between January 2013 and August 2020. The plaintiff issued invoices for that period to the defendant for the total sum of Ugx 3,817,765,404/=(Uganda shillings Three Billion Eight Hundred Seventeen Million Seven Hundred Sixty Five Thousand Four Hundred Four). The defendant made several payments between 1st May 2013 and 13th August 2020 by cash and cheque totalling Ugx

3,236,637,262/= (Uganda Shillings Three Billion Two Hundred Thirty Six Million Six Hundred Thirty Seven Thousand Two Hundred Twenty Six) leaving an outstanding balance of Ugx 581,128,142/= (Uganda shillings Five Hundred Eighty One Million, One Hundred Twenty Eight Thousand, One hundred Forty Two) but despite several demands by the plaintiff the defendant has refused to pay, the reason for this suit.

- [2] It should be noted that the defendants filed M. A No. 38 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 581,128,142/= (Uganda Shillings Five Hundred Eighty One Million, One Hundred Twenty Eight Thousand, One Hundred Forty Two) 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 581,128,142/= (Uganda Shillings Five Hundred Eighty One Million, One Hundred Twenty Eight Thousand, One Hundred Forty Two) - b) costs of the suit be paid by the defendant.

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

![](_page_1_Picture_7.jpeg)

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.