Uganda Case Law

Bollore Transport and Logistics (U) Limited v Musau Waita (Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application 146 of 2022)

Bollore Transport and Logistics (U) Limited v Musau Waita (Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application 146 of 2022) [2023] UGIC 86 (24 March 2023)

Court

Industrial Court of Uganda

Case number

Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application 146 of 2022

Judges

Wabwire Musana, J, Namara, Panel Member, Nabirye, Matovu

The Industrial Court held that under Section 94(2) of the Employment Act, 2006 and Rule 24 of the Labour Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) (Industrial Court) Rules, 2012, appeals on questions of law lie as of right, while appeals on questions of fact or mixed law and fact require leave of court. Grounds 1, 2, and 3 of the Memorandum of Appeal were found to relate to questions of law, specifically the interpretation and application of Section 67 of the Contract Act, 2010 regarding variation of contract. Grounds 4 and 5, however, were based on findings of fact and mixed law and fact, involv…

Source excerpt

• Appeals On Questions Of Law
• Leave To Appeal On Facts
• Drafting Memorandum Of Appeal
• Variation Of Contract
• Waiver And Estoppel

TMA Architects and Another v Prome Sonsultants

TMA Architects and Another v Prome Sonsultants (Miscellaneous Cause 80 of 2023) [2023] UGCommC 44 (27 February 2023)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Cause 80 of 2023

Judge

Stephen Mubiru, J

The High Court upheld an arbitrator’s jurisdiction, finding the parties validly varied their arbitration clause to ICAMEK and had delayed too long to object.

• Arbitration Agreement Variation
• Kompetenz Kompetenz
• Appointment Of Arbitrator
• Party Autonomy
• Contractual Modification
• Waiver And Estoppel

Lubowa and others v Makerere University

Lubowa and others v Makerere University (Civil Appeal 2 of 2011) [2013] UGSC 24 (19 June 2013)

Court

Supreme Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal 2 of 2011

Judge

Odoki, CJ, Katureebe, JSC, Tumwesigye, JSC, Kitumba, JSC, Kisaakye, JSC

The Supreme Court held that the appellants' cause of action did not accrue in 1983 when the initial salary scale circular was issued, but only when the respondent's University Council made a final decision in November 2001 to keep the appellants at M6, after years of studies, negotiations, and shifting positions. The Court found that until the final decision, all material facts necessary for the cause of action were not present, as the respondent itself had commissioned studies and made representations that the matter was under review. The Court rejected the argument that mere negotiations or…

Source excerpt

• Limitation Of Actions
• Employment Contracts
• Salary Disputes
• Waiver And Estoppel
• Cause Of Action Accrual

Lubowa & 4 Ors v Makerere University

Lubowa & 4 Ors v Makerere University [2013] UGSC 8 (19 June 2013)

Court

Supreme Court of Uganda

The Supreme Court held that the appellants' cause of action did not accrue in 1983 when the disputed salary scale was introduced, but rather in November 2001 when Makerere University's Council made a final decision to keep the appellants at M6, rejecting the recommendation to place them at M5. The Court found that until this final decision, the matter was subject to ongoing studies, reports, and representations by the respondent, and all material facts necessary for the appellants to sue were not present. The respondent's conduct, including assurances and requests for the appellants to wait f…

Source excerpt

• Limitation Of Actions
• Breach Of Employment Contract
• Salary Scales Disputes
• Waiver And Estoppel
• Cause Of Action Accrual

andes (EAS) Ltd v Akoong Mulik Systems & 2 Ors (High Court Civil Suit No. 184 of 2008)

andes (EAS) Ltd v Akoong Mulik Systems & 2 Ors (High Court Civil Suit No. 184 of 2008) [2012] UGCommC 58 (5 June 2012)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

High Court Civil Suit No. 184 of 2008

Judge

Obura, J

The High Court held that the parties had a valid MOU, but the counterclaimant waived its right to rely on the breach and failed to prove damages.

• Breach Of Contract
• Memorandum Of Understanding
• Waiver And Estoppel
• Damages Assessment
• Mitigation Of Loss
• Breach-of-contract

MH ConstructionCoLtd v Petro Uganda Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 425 of 2002)

MH ConstructionCoLtd v Petro Uganda Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 425 of 2002) [2005] UGCommC 3 (13 February 2005)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

High Court Civil Suit No. 425 of 2002

The High Court held that the contractor breached the construction contract, upheld termination, rejected contractual penalties, and awarded the defendant general damages.

• Breach Of Contract
• Liquidated Damages
• Termination Of Contract
• Remedies For Breach
• Waiver And Estoppel
• Breach-of-contract

Kanyomozi v Motor Mart(U) Ltd

Kanyomozi v Motor Mart(U) Ltd (Civil Appeal 15 of 1995) [2000] UGSC 27 (14 June 2000)

Court

Supreme Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal 15 of 1995

Judge

Oder, JSC, Mulenga, JSC, Kanyeihamba, JSC

The Supreme Court held that Motor Mart breached a vehicle repair contract by failing to complete repairs within a reasonable time, and rejected waiver and estoppel defenses.

• Breach Of Contract
• Waiver And Estoppel
• Remedies For Breach
• Assessment Of Damages
• Breach-of-contract
• Waiver-and-estoppel

Yonasani B.Kanyomozi v Motor Mart(U) Ltd

Yonasani B.Kanyomozi v Motor Mart(U) Ltd [2000] UGSC 14 (14 June 2000)

Court

Supreme Court of Uganda

The Supreme Court held that there was a binding contract between the appellant and the respondent for the repair of the appellant's vehicle, and that the respondent breached this contract by failing to complete the repairs within a reasonable time. The Court found that the trial judge erred in holding that the appellant had waived his rights or was estopped from suing, as there was no mutual agreement or representation to that effect. The appellant's decision to allow further attempts at repair did not amount to a waiver or estoppel. The Court further held that there was no legal necessity fo…

Source excerpt

• Breach Of Contract
• Remedies For Breach
• Waiver And Estoppel
• Assessment Of Damages

Overman Reid and Company and Another v Karim (C.C. 42/1931 (Mombasa).)

Overman Reid and Company and Another v Karim (C.C. 42/1931 (Mombasa).) [1934] EACA 26 (1 January 1934)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

C.C. 42/1931 (Mombasa).

Judge

Webb, J

The court held that although a subsidiary contract existed between Overman and Company and the defendant, the plaintiffs' rights under this contract could only arise upon actual presentation of the shipping documents to the defendant. The buyer under a C.I.F. contract is entitled to insist on physical presentation of shipping documents before payment. The alleged local usage in Mombasa was not proved to be so universally accepted as to modify this requirement. Previous conduct by the defendant did not amount to a waiver of his right to presentation, and the circumstances did not establish est…

Source excerpt

• Cif Contracts
• Presentation Of Shipping Documents
• Subsidiary Contracts
• Local Trade Usage
• Waiver And Estoppel