Uganda Case Law

Byakiika v Amotrust Construction Services Limited and 3 Others

Byakiika v Amotrust Construction Services Limited and 3 Others (Civil Suit No. 951 of 2018) [2022] UGCommC 79 (21 June 2022)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Suit No. 951 of 2018

Judge

Wabwire, J

The court found that the Plaintiff was not a stranger to the subcontract between the 1st and 3rd Defendants. Documentary evidence, including annexures to the Plaint, demonstrated that the 3rd Defendant was made aware of the assignment of payment rights to the Plaintiff and agreed to make payments directly. The legal principles on assignment and privity of contract, as cited, establish that the Plaintiff had a right to sue the 3rd Defendant for non-payment under the arrangement. Therefore, the Plaint discloses a cause of action against the 3rd Defendant, and the preliminary objection is overru…

Source excerpt

• Cause Of Action
• Privity Of Contract
• Assignment Of Contractual Rights
• Subcontractor Liability

Lunco Constructors Ltd v Attorney General and Anor (HCT-00-CC-CS 318 of 2004)

Lunco Constructors Ltd v Attorney General and Anor (HCT-00-CC-CS 318 of 2004) [2006] UGCommC 3 (23 January 2006)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

HCT-00-CC-CS 318 of 2004

The court held that the Plaintiff was not a party to the contract between the 1st Defendant (Attorney General/Ministry of Water, Lands & Environment) and the 2nd Defendant (Combine Services Ltd). The Plaintiff was only a sub-contractor to the 2nd Defendant and, as such, was a stranger to the main contract. The law of privity of contract prohibits a stranger from enforcing contractual rights unless there is a statutory exception or a valid assignment or novation, none of which was pleaded or proved in this case. The Plaintiff's claim against the 1st Defendant was therefore misconceived, as any…

Source excerpt

• Privity Of Contract
• Cause Of Action
• Novation
• Assignment Of Contractual Rights

Wahid and Sons v Munshiram and Co (CA'. 29/1932.)

Wahid and Sons v Munshiram and Co (CA'. 29/1932.) [1932] EACA 53 (1 January 1932)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

CA'. 29/1932.

Judge

Barth, C.J (Kenya), Law, Ag C.J. (Uganda), Thomas, J. (Kenya)

The court held that no attachable debt existed when the prohibitory order was issued, so the attachment failed. The assignees were entitled to the funds.

• Attachment Of Debts
• Assignment Of Contractual Rights
• Execution Of Judgments
• Priority Of Claims
• Registration Of Assignments
• Attachment-of-debts