Uganda Case Law

Hydro Engineering Services CoUganda Ltd v Thorne International Boiler services Ltd (HCT-00-CC-CS 818 of 2003)

Hydro Engineering Services CoUganda Ltd v Thorne International Boiler services Ltd (HCT-00-CC-CS 818 of 2003) [2008] UGCommC 83 (29 September 2008)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

HCT-00-CC-CS 818 of 2003

The court found that the contract between the parties was a fixed price (lump sum) contract for USD 139,015, inclusive of VAT, as evidenced by the parties' correspondence and agreement. Although the plaintiff did not fully perform the contract, the court held that the defendant's actions—specifically, ordering the plaintiff off the site after a request for revision of terms—made full performance impossible. The court applied the doctrine of substantial performance, determining that the plaintiff had completed over 90% of the work before being prevented from finishing. There was no independent…

Source excerpt

• Construction Contracts
• Breach Of Contract
• Substantial Performance
• Fixed Price Contracts

Kituni Construction Co. Ltd v Julius Okeny (HCT-00-CC-CS 250 of 2004)

Kituni Construction Co. Ltd v Julius Okeny (HCT-00-CC-CS 250 of 2004) [2007] UGCommC 86 (30 October 2007)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

HCT-00-CC-CS 250 of 2004

The High Court held that the defendant breached a lump-sum construction contract, found substantial performance by the plaintiff, and awarded the full contract price with interest and costs.

• Breach Of Contract
• Construction Contracts
• Substantial Performance
• Remedies For Breach
• Contract Variation
• Breach-of-contract

Sietco v Noble Builders (U) Limited

Sietco v Noble Builders (U) Limited (Civil Appeal 31 of 1995) [1997] UGSC 21 (3 April 1997)

Court

Supreme Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal 31 of 1995

Judge

Wambuzi, CJ, Odoki, JSC, Tsekooko, JSC

The Supreme Court held that the amendments to the plaint, including the correction of the plaintiff's name, did not constitute an unlawful substitution of parties but rather a permissible correction of a misnomer, as both parties were aware of the proper identity and no injustice resulted. The appellant failed to object to the amendments in the lower court and participated fully in the proceedings. The trial Judge exercised judicial discretion properly in refusing adjournments and amendments where insufficient cause was shown, and the exclusion of evidence outside the pleadings was lawful. Th…

Source excerpt

• Building Contracts
• Pleadings Amendment
• Interest Awards
• Counter Claims
• Substantial Performance
• Judicial Discretion