Businessman paid Be Forward Shs 31 million for a car. 12 years later, he’s still waiting for it

In October 2014, Arben Pajaziti, a Kampala businessman, agreed with Be Forward Ltd, a vehicle importation firm, to buy a car worth Shs 31 million.

The vehicle was to be shipped to Kampala under cost, insurance, and freight (CIF) terms.

Under the arrangement, Pajaziti paid the full purchase price. Another company, Cadam Enterprises, was tasked with clearing the car through customs and handing it over to him once it arrived in Uganda.

The car reached Uganda on December 31, 2014, but instead of receiving it, Pajaziti was told there was a problem.

Cadam informed him that the vehicle had a faulty gearbox. He crossed his fingers. Later, when he approached Be Forward, he was told a replacement gearbox had been sent to Uganda for repairs.

So the Pajaziti waited, but as time passed, he grew increasingly aggrieved. He had paid for a car, secured tax-exempt registration plates and even handed them over, but still had nothing to show for it.

He pestered Be Forward for his car, but the company officials gave him different excuses.

In 2016, after he had gotten tired of waiting, he sued Be Forward and Cadam Enterprises.

He told the court that the failure to deliver the vehicle disrupted his daily life and forced him to spend money on alternative transport between Munyonyo and Entebbe.

Be Forward did not appear in court while Cadam was represented by KTA Advocates.

In his suit, he asked for a refund, compensation for expenses, damages, and cancellation of the vehicle registration.

One of the key issues was whether Cadam could be held responsible, since it argued that it was not part of the original sales contract.

Cadam’s lawyers said the doctrine of privity of contract meant it could not be sued because it was not a direct party to the agreement.

But Pajaziti’s lawyers from Tamale & Company Advocates countered that Cadam acted as an agent of Be Forward in Uganda and therefore could not escape liability.

Justice Dr. Ginamia Melody Ngwatu, who heard the case, agreed with Pajaziti and said the relationship between Cadam and Be Forward showed clear signs of agency.

She pointed to email communication in which Cadam was described as the local agent of Be Forward.

“From these communications, a principal-agent relationship can reasonably be implied,” she said.

She added that Cadam had conducted itself like an agent and could not later deny that role.

In this case, Cadam had received both the car and the replacement gearbox but failed to deliver either to the buyer.

On whether the contract had been breached, the court found that Be Forward and Cadam failed on several fronts.

First, the car was defective. Second, it was never delivered. Third, promises to repair it were not fulfilled.

She said: “Pajaziti performed his obligations under the contract by paying the full purchase price… and the defendants did not fulfill their obligations.”

She concluded that this amounted to a clear breach of contract.

On the question of compensation, the court carefully considered each claim.

Justice Ngwatu agreed that Pajaziti was entitled to a refund because he paid for a car he never received.

Therefore, she ordered that Pajaziti be refunded his Shs 31 million in addition to damages of Shs 20 million, bringing the total to Shs 51 million.

“Pajaziti had been denied both his car and his money for more than 11 years,” Justice Ngwatu noted.