Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Uganda decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Damuco Investments Limited v Opportunity Bank (U) Limited (Civil Suit 589 of 2019) [2024] UGCommC 334 (12 November 2024)
The High Court held that the plaintiff contractor breached the amended ATV/ATM works contract by failing to complete on time, and upheld the bank’s counterclaim.
Create Consult Limited v Adraiga (Civil Suit 20 of 2021) [2024] UGHC 806 (29 August 2024)
The High Court of Uganda held that a 4% daily default penalty in a money-lending agreement was illegal and unenforceable, but awarded the lender a recalculated balance, simple default interest, damages, costs, and interest.
Mectron Technical Services Ltd v Jevi Media Solutions Ltd & Ors (Civil Suit No. 516 of 2013) [2015] UGCommC 152 (13 November 2015)
The court held that a 6% weekly contractual penalty interest was unconscionable and reduced it to 24% per annum, also awarding costs to the plaintiff.
Kitande v Nyende (HCCA No. 27 of 2000) [2001] UGHCCD 1 (5 November 2001)
The appellate court found that the appellant was not a money lender within the meaning of the Money Lenders Act, as there was no evidence she conducted a business of money lending or held herself out as such. Therefore, the transaction was not illegal, and the appellant was entitled to recover both the principal and the agreed interest. However, the clause stipulating a penalty interest of shs. 5,000 per day for default was held to be extravagant, harsh, and unconscionable, amounting to a penalty and thus irrecoverable. The court awarded the principal sum, the agreed interest, and minimal dam…
Source excerpt
Kanoblic Group of Companies (U) v Sugar Corporation of Uganda Ltd (H.C.C.S. 299 of 1993) [1994] UGHC 28 (13 April 1994)
The court found that the plaintiff completed the contracted work and was entitled to payment, but the amount claimed did not tally with the work done after proper deductions for advance payments, retention, and the cost of materials supplied by the defendant. The court accepted oral evidence of an extension of time for completion due to increased scope of work, as this was not inconsistent with the written contract. The defendant was not under a contractual obligation to supply materials, and any delay in supply did not constitute a breach. Allegations of fraud by the defendant in inflating m…
Source excerpt
