Download

Uganda Judgment

High Court of Uganda

Crescent Transportation Co. Ltd v B.M. Technical Services Ltd (Civil Suit No. 531 of 1999) [1999] UGHC 44 (1 November 1999)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court found that the defendant was liable for the outstanding balance of the agreed freight charges, as evidenced by the contract and the testimony of the plaintiff's witness. However, the court rejected the claims for container and trailer detention charges due to lack of contractual basis and supporting evidence. The court therefore awarded the plaintiff only the balance of USD 1,883, with interest at 4% per annum from the date of filing until payment in full, and costs of the suit.

Court disposition

judgment for the plaintiff in part

Orders

  • Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff for USD 1,883.
  • Interest at 4% per annum from the date of filing suit until payment in full.
  • Plaintiff awarded costs of the suit.

02

Material facts

Parties

Crescent Transportation Co. Ltd

Plaintiff Counsel: Tayebwa

B. M. Technical Services Ltd

Defendant Counsel: Kakuru

Amounts and remedies

  • Principal Sum Awarded: USD 1,883
  • Interest Rate Per Annum: 4

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Civil Suit / Judgment

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The plaintiff argued that it carried goods for the defendant from Mombasa to Kampala for a total agreed sum of USD 4,050, of which only UGX 3,000,000 (USD 2,167) was paid. The defendant failed to clear the goods within the free period, resulting in additional detention charges. The plaintiff claimed a total of USD 35,820, representing the balance of freight and detention charges, less the amount already paid.
Respondent
The defendant did not appear at the hearing and did not present any arguments or evidence in court.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    General contract law principles

    A party is bound by the terms of a contract of carriage and is liable for the agreed freight charges unless evidence shows otherwise.

  2. 02

    Exhibit PI (contract of carriage) and court's evaluation of evidence

    Claims for additional charges such as detention must be supported by evidence and must be provided for in the contract.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court found that the defendant was liable for the outstanding balance of the agreed freight charges, as evidenced by the contract and the testimony of the plaintiff's witness. However, the court rejected the claims for container and trailer detention charges due to lack of contractual basis and supporting evidence. The court therefore awarded the plaintiff only the balance of USD 1,883, with interest at 4% per annum from the date of filing until payment in full, and costs of the suit.

Obiter and limits

  • Claims for charges not expressly provided for in the contract or unsupported by evidence will not be entertained by the court.
  • Parties must mitigate their losses and provide sufficient evidence for all claims made in court.

Court disposition

judgment for the plaintiff in part

  • Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff for USD 1,883.
  • Interest at 4% per annum from the date of filing suit until payment in full.
  • Plaintiff awarded costs of the suit.

Source and reliance status

High Court of Uganda

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Source document

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

High Court of Uganda

Judgment

[1999] UGHC 44

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA CIVIL SUIT NO. 531 OF 1999

CRESCENT TRANSPORTATION CO. LTD PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

B. M. TECHNICAL SERVICES LTD DEFENDANT

BEFORE THE HON, JUSTICE RICHARD O. OKUMU WENGI.

JUDGMENT:

This is a suit to claim for freight charges and other charges relating to a contract of carriage of goods from Mombasa to Kampala. The matter, which had been dismissed, was reinstated at the behest of the defendant. However on the day set for hearing neither the defendant nor his counsel was present. This court therefore proceeded with the suit in their absence. The plaintiff called one witness one Waiswa Kafuko Moses an accountant of the plaintiff. He testified that as per exhibit PI the plaintiff agreed to carry goods of the defendant to Kampala for a srun of US \$ 4050 inclusive of clearing charges at Mombasa. Accordingly the defendant freighted the goods to Kampala whereupon he was paid only Shs. 3,000,000/= by the defendant (\$ 2167). The defendant was then upon notification entitled to four (4) free days when he ought to have cleared with customs and the freight charges fully and taken delivery. According to Waiswa the defendant did not. As a result the container having arrived on the trailer on 11/1.1/98.remained on the trailer until it was dropped on 25/05/99. Therefore besides the balance on freight" and clearing charges the defendant was liable to pay container detention charges at the rate of \$ 20 per day and trailer detention at the rate of \$ 150 per day. The plaintiff therefore claimed a total of US <sup>S</sup> 35,820 having set off the sum of \$ 2167 already paid to it. This amount represented the freight cost balance and the trailer and container detention charges.

to

3-0

XS

HoweverJfrom..aJoQk. at exhibit PI therejs...no. .charge .known as container detention. of\_\$. 20 per day. <sup>I</sup> therefore strike out the claim of US \$ 9,700. There was also no evidence led about the trailer for which a sum of <sup>S</sup> 25,650 is claimed. There is no indication that the container could not have been dropped from the trailer which would then go back with the tractor to

1

ii to the mitigate plaintiffs losses. No evidence was led on this particular clai satisfaction of the court.

In the circumstances this court enters judgment against the defendant ' freight for the sum of US dollars 1,883 being the balance on the costs <sup>o</sup> from Mombasa to Kampala. He is also entitled to interest on the above sum at 4% per annum from date of filing suit till settlement thereof. He will also collect costs ofthis action.

5"

*io*

I i I i

i i i

RICHARD O. OKUMU WENGI Ag. JUDGE 28/10/1999.

1/11/1999: Kakuru for defendant Tayebwa for plaintiff Rosemary Emeru Court Clerk

Judgment read in open court in the presence of above persons.

fl\_\_ *...............................................................*

RICHARD O. OKUMU WENGI Ag. JUDGE 1/11/1999.

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

CIVIL SUIT NO. 531 OF 1999

PLAINTIFF CRESCENT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY LIMITED *------*

VERSUS

B. M. TECHNICAL SERVICES LTD. DEFENDANT

DECREE

THIS SUIT coming up to day for hearing and final disposal before HONOURABLE JUSTICE OSCAR OKUM WENGI (A. G.) in the presence of CRANMMER TAYEBWA, Counsel for the plaintiff and KENNETH KAKURU, Counsel for the defendant.

IT IS HEREBY DECREED AND ORDERED that judgement be and is hereby entered in favour ofthe plaintiff for a sum of USS 1,883, with interest of 4% per annum from the date offiling the suit until payment in full and the costs ofthe suit.

of court this *1* day of GIVEN under my hand and the seal ......................1999.

UTY REGIST

We approve:

TUSASIRWE & CO. ADVOCATES. *COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF.*

KAKURU & CO. ADVOCATES

*COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT*

TO: The Deputy Registrar High Court of Uganda Kampala.

day of Lodged at the registry of the High Court of Uganda at Kampala , this 1999.

DEPUTY REGIS

c.c. Tile Registrar Court ofAppeal ofUganda Kampala.

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

No structured authorities are available for this judgment.

Refer to the full judgment and official source for citations that have not yet been extracted.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this JurisAssist collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.