A purchaser alleging full payment must produce clear, acknowledged evidence of each installment; unverified handwritten notes are insufficient, High Court at Kampala Rules.

Waboga David
Oct 6
4 min read

Facts

The Plaintiff, Kabali Dick, sued the Defendants jointly and severally seeking a refund of UGX 90,000,000 allegedly paid as purchase price for land comprised in Kyadondo Block 264 Plot 3 at Mutundwe; Interest at commercial bank rate; General damages; and Costs of the suit.

He averred that he had fully paid the UGX 90 million consideration and took possession of the land, but was later disturbed by third parties who claimed ownership under separate transactions with the Defendants.

The Defendants denied receiving full payment, contending that the Plaintiff only paid UGX 32,000,000, leaving an unpaid balance of UGX 58,000,000.

Issues for Determination

Whether there was a breach of contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendants.
Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the remedies sought.

Legal Representation

For the Plaintiff, Counsel Goloba Muhammad of M/S Simul Advocates
For the Defendants, Counsel Kenneth Kajeke of M/S Kajeke, Maguru & Co. Advocates

Submissions

Plaintiff’s Counsel

Argued that the sale agreement was duly executed, with full payment made in installments. Submitted that the Defendants breached the contract by failing to transfer title and deliver vacant possession. Cited Amanya v Mayanja Samuel, HCCS No. 579 of 2019, defining breach as the failure to perform any term of a contract without lawful excuse.

Defendants’ Counsel

Maintained that the Plaintiff only paid UGX 32 million, not UGX 90 million. Argued that the handwritten “Kisingiri account” (PEX3) relied on by the Plaintiff was not an acknowledged receipt. Claimed that the 1st Defendant’s undertaking to pay UGX 300 million was signed under duress.

Court’s Findings

The Court emphasised at the outset that under Sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act, the burden of proof squarely lies on the party who asserts the existence of a fact. Accordingly, a plaintiff who alleges payment or performance of contractual obligations must adduce credible evidence to prove such facts on a balance of probabilities.

The Court observed that although the Defendants did not produce any witness testimony in their defence, this omission did not in itself shift the evidential burden onto them. It reaffirmed the settled legal principle that a defendant’s failure to call witnesses does not automatically entitle the plaintiff to judgment; the plaintiff must still discharge the primary burden of proof through cogent and credible evidence.

Citing the reasoning in Tucker Mubiru v Attorney General, CACA No. 084 of 2013, the Court noted that even where a defendant elects not to adduce evidence, the trial court must still carefully evaluate the plaintiff’s evidence to determine whether the claim has been sufficiently established in law and fact.

Upon evaluating the record, the Court found that only three payments were satisfactorily proved and duly acknowledged by the Defendants:

UGX 19,000,000 paid upon execution of the sale agreement on 29 December 2009;
UGX 21,000,000 paid on 25 January 2010, acknowledged by signatures in the margins of page 3 of the agreement; and
UGX 13,000,000 paid on 26 February 2010, evidenced by a signed acknowledgment (PEX2).

These payments amounted to UGX 53,000,000, which the Court accepted as the total proven consideration paid by the Plaintiff.

The Court further observed that the alleged subsequent payment of UGX 58,000,000 was not supported by any admissible acknowledgment or receipt signed by the Defendants. The document relied upon by the Plaintiff, marked as PEX3 and titled “Kisingiri Account,” was merely a handwritten breakdown of figures. It did not constitute an acknowledgment of receipt, bore no signatures of the parties, and thus did not satisfy evidentiary standards for proof of payment.

The Court noted with concern that the Plaintiff’s own computations of payments (UGX 19,000,000 + UGX 21,000,000 + UGX 13,000,000 + UGX 58,000,000) actually totalled UGX 111,000,000, exceeding the contractual purchase price of UGX 90,000,000.

This inconsistency, the Court held, further weakened the credibility of the Plaintiff’s claim that he had fully discharged the purchase price.

In interpreting Clause 3 of the sale agreement, the Court emphasised that the vendors’ obligation to transfer title and deliver vacant possession was expressly conditioned upon full payment of the purchase price. Since the Plaintiff had not proved full payment, the Defendants’ duty to transfer ownership or grant possession had not arisen in law.

The Court reaffirmed the contractual principle that obligations are reciprocal, and performance by one party (in this case, delivery of title) is contingent upon performance by the other (payment of full consideration).

It was therefore concluded that the Plaintiff failed to establish a breach of contract on the part of the Defendants. The only entitlement proved was a refund of the amount actually paid and acknowledged, being UGX 53,000,000, together with interest as compensation for loss of use of money.

Holding

The suit partially succeeded. The court ordered:

A refund of UGX 53,000,000 to the Plaintiff, with 10% interest from the judgment date until paid in full, against the Defendants jointly.
Costs of the suit awarded to the Plaintiff.

Key Takeaways

Even where the Defendant does not adduce evidence, the Plaintiff bears the burden to prove his claim on a balance of probabilities.
A purchaser alleging full payment must produce clear, acknowledged evidence of each installment; unverified handwritten notes are insufficient.
A vendor’s duty to transfer title and deliver possession arises only upon full payment of the purchase price.
Where full consideration is unproven, the court will only refund amounts actually acknowledged or evidenced.
Refund of proven payments does not automatically entitle the purchaser to general damages absent clear proof of breach.

Read the full decision