News
Kampala court dismisses sh16b grain supply claim against South Sudan
Justice Patience Rubagumya stated that Samara Tradings Limited had no cause of action against the defendant and dismissed the suit. The court, however, did not award costs because the defendant did not file a written defence.
Kampala court dismisses sh16b grain supply claim against South Sudan
By: Edward Anyoli, Journalist @New Vision
___________________
The Commercial Division of the High Court has dismissed a lawsuit seeking $4.4 million (about sh16 billion) in compensation from a South Sudan government entity over alleged unpaid maize grain supplies.
Justice Patience Rubagumya stated that Samara Tradings Limited had no cause of action against the defendant and dismissed the suit. The court, however, did not award costs because the defendant did not file a written defence.
The case was filed by Samara Tradings Limited seeking compensation, general damages, interest and costs of the suit, claiming that it supplied maize grain to the defendant for distribution in the Republic of South Sudan but had never been paid.
Court documents show that in 2008, government of South Sudan entered into contracts with Palm Enterprises Company Limited and Das Investment Company Limited for the supply of 30,000 and 50,000 bags of maize grain, respectively.
According to court, Samara Trading Limited later entered into subcontracting agreements with Palm Enterprises and Muri Investment Company Limited, which had acquired Das Investment, to supply the grain. The supplies were delivered to the companies and subsequently transmitted to South Sudan.
Samara Trading Limited argued that although the agreements were initially signed with the subcontractors, the defendant had authorised the arrangements, received the supplies and should therefore be held liable for payment.
Through its lawyer, Asiimwe Jotham of Tiam Advocates, Samara Trading Limited had argued that the circumstances created an exception to the principle of privity of contract, which generally limits contractual obligations to parties who entered into the agreement.
According to court, Samara Trading Limited later entered into subcontracting agreements with Palm Enterprises and Muri Investment Company Limited, which had acquired Das Investment, to supply the grain. The supplies were delivered to the companies and subsequently transmitted to South Sudan.
Samara Trading Limited argued that although the agreements were initially signed with the subcontractors, the defendant had authorised the arrangements, received the supplies and should therefore be held liable for payment.
Through its lawyer, Asiimwe Jotham of Tiam Advocates, Samara Trading Limited had argued that the circumstances created an exception to the principle of privity of contract, which generally limits contractual obligations to parties who entered into the agreement.
The lawyer submitted that the defendant had consented to the subcontracting arrangement and that its agencies in Central Equatoria State acknowledged receipt of the goods, supported by documents presented in court.
However, Justice Rubagumya found that the contractual agreements were between Samara Trading Limited and the subcontractors, which ordinarily confined any claim to those entities.
The judge noted that Samara Trading Limited had failed to establish a legal basis for holding the defendant liable for the alleged unpaid supplies.
“In the circumstances, I find that the plaintiff has no cause of action against the defendant. Accordingly, this suit is dismissed,” Justice Rubagumya said.
The court record indicates that summons to file a defence were served on Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs of the Republic of Southern Sudan (Attorney General of South Sudan in April and September 2025, but the defendant failed to file a written statement of defence, prompting the matter to proceed for hearing.
However, Justice Rubagumya found that the contractual agreements were between Samara Trading Limited and the subcontractors, which ordinarily confined any claim to those entities.
The judge noted that Samara Trading Limited had failed to establish a legal basis for holding the defendant liable for the alleged unpaid supplies.
“In the circumstances, I find that the plaintiff has no cause of action against the defendant. Accordingly, this suit is dismissed,” Justice Rubagumya said.
The court record indicates that summons to file a defence were served on Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs of the Republic of Southern Sudan (Attorney General of South Sudan in April and September 2025, but the defendant failed to file a written statement of defence, prompting the matter to proceed for hearing.