In her judgement, she told the court that there was an affidavit of service which was served on the defendant through newspaper advertisement. She stated that the defendant did not appear.
She asserted that the plaintiff was heard pursuant to Section 7 (1) of the subordinate courts, Civil Proceeding Act. She added that having heard the plaintiff in proof of his case, it was established that he paid D10,000 for the hall at Busumbala and D10,000 to the DJ which were not used, thus refundable.
“The tickets were already printed, and to my mind, the likelihood of them being sold was limited because they were made for that specific event. It is my opinion that in situation like this, the plaintiff should have mitigated this loss by going for a refund for those available,” she stated.
She noted that having said this, she held that the D20,000 for the hall and DJ are refundable and the plaintiff should pursue them. “I hold further that the defendant is liable for the cost of the tickets already printed. The plaintiff’s evidence established that the defendant breached the contract and suffered loss as a result and incurred cost in getting monies back,” she told the court.
She further adduced that the court was satisfied and convinced that the plaintiff’s case had been proved on a balance of probability.
