Share
Hwan Sung Industries Ltd v Tajdin Hussien & 2 Ors (Civil Suit No. 276 of 2001) [2002] UGCommC 17 (24 September 2002)
- Citation
- [2002] UGCommC 17
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- Commercial Court of Uganda
- Posture
- Civil Suit / Judgment
- Case number
- Civil Suit No. 276 of 2001
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Commercial Court of Uganda
- Posture
- Civil Suit / Judgment
- Case number
- Civil Suit No. 276 of 2001
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the goods supplied by the defendants were not fit for the purpose for which the plaintiff ordered them, as evidenced by both internal and UNBS analysis. The plaintiff's witnesses were credible and established that the substance was undesirable and potentially harmful for use in ice cream production. The plaintiff was entitled to reject the goods and claim a refund of the deposit paid. The defendants failed to prove that the goods were fit for purpose or that the plaintiff was liable for the balance of the contract price. The counterclaim was dismissed for lack of evidence. The court awarded the plaintiff US$ 8,000, costs of the UNBS analysis, general damages, and interest, and ordered the defendants to pay costs of the suit.
Court disposition
judgment_for_plaintiff
Orders
- Defendants to pay plaintiff US$ 8,000 as refund of deposit.
- Defendants to pay plaintiff UGX 40,000 for UNBS analysis costs.
- Defendants to pay plaintiff UGX 1,500,000 as general damages.
- Interest at 6% per annum on US$ 8,000 from 15/12/2000 until payment in full.
- Interest at 15% per annum on UGX 40,000 from 7/3/2001 until payment in full.
- Defendants to pay costs of the suit.
- Counterclaim dismissed for lack of evidence.
02
Material facts
Parties
Hwang Sung Industries Ltd
PlaintiffTajdin Hussein
DefendantRainbow Foods Ltd
DefendantNizar Hussein
DefendantAmounts and remedies
- Refund of Deposit: USD 8,000
- Unbs Analysis Costs: UGX 40,000
- General Damages: UGX 1,500,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the defendants are liable to refund US$ 8,000 paid by the plaintiff for goods rejected as unfit for purpose.
- 02
Whether the plaintiff was entitled to reject the goods supplied by the defendants.
- 03
Whether the defendants are entitled to the balance of the contract price under their counterclaim.
- 04
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages and costs.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The plaintiff argued that the orange oil flavour supplied by the defendants was not fit for the intended purpose, as confirmed by internal and Uganda National Bureau of Standards (UNBS) analysis. The substance contained insoluble suspended matter and showed signs of deterioration and contamination. The plaintiff rejected the goods and demanded a refund of the US$ 8,000 deposit, reimbursement of expenses, and costs of the suit.
- Respondent
- The defendants contended that the goods supplied complied with the sample provided and that the plaintiff delayed in raising any complaint after delivery. They maintained that the substance supplied was orange oil as ordered and denied any serious complaint regarding its quality. The defendants counterclaimed for the balance of the contract price, US$ 8,000.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Sale of Goods Act (Cap 82), Section 15
Goods supplied under a contract must be fit for the purpose for which they are ordered; if not, the buyer is entitled to reject them and claim a refund.
- 02
Uganda National Bureau of Standards Act
The burden of proof lies on the party alleging breach of contract to demonstrate that the goods were unfit for purpose.
- 03
Civil Procedure Rules
A counterclaim must be supported by evidence of entitlement to the claimed sum.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the goods supplied by the defendants were not fit for the purpose for which the plaintiff ordered them, as evidenced by both internal and UNBS analysis. The plaintiff's witnesses were credible and established that the substance was undesirable and potentially harmful for use in ice cream production. The plaintiff was entitled to reject the goods and claim a refund of the deposit paid. The defendants failed to prove that the goods were fit for purpose or that the plaintiff was liable for the balance of the contract price. The counterclaim was dismissed for lack of evidence. The court awarded the plaintiff US$ 8,000, costs of the UNBS analysis, general damages, and interest, and ordered the defendants to pay costs of the suit.
Obiter and limits
- The court noted the importance of quality control in food manufacturing and the duty to protect consumers from potentially harmful products.
- The reliability and expertise of technical witnesses, such as those from UNBS, are crucial in determining the fitness of goods for purpose.
Court disposition
judgment_for_plaintiff
- Defendants to pay plaintiff US$ 8,000 as refund of deposit.
- Defendants to pay plaintiff UGX 40,000 for UNBS analysis costs.
- Defendants to pay plaintiff UGX 1,500,000 as general damages.
- Interest at 6% per annum on US$ 8,000 from 15/12/2000 until payment in full.
- Interest at 15% per annum on UGX 40,000 from 7/3/2001 until payment in full.
- Defendants to pay costs of the suit.
- Counterclaim dismissed for lack of evidence.
Source and reliance status
Commercial 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.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Commercial Court of Uganda
Judgment
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang2057\deflangfe2057{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;}{\f36\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;} {\f37\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;}{\f39\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f40\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f41\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);} {\f42\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);}{\f43\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f44\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese);}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255; \red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0; \red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 \snext0 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph
Font;}{\*\ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\trcbpat1\trcfpat1\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{ \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa100\sbauto1\saauto1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 \sbasedon0 \snext15 \styrsid65853 Normal (Web);}{\s16\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar \tqc\tx4153\tqr\tx8306\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 \sbasedon0 \snext16 \styrsid13834396 footer;}{\*\cs17 \additive \sbasedon10 \styrsid13834396 page number;}} {\*\latentstyles\lsdstimax156\lsdlockeddef0}{\*\pgptbl {\pgp\ipgp0\itap0\li0\ri0\sb0\sa0}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid65853\rsid2967338\rsid8393862\rsid10641860\rsid12470469\rsid13834396}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 11.0.5604;}{\info{\title THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA } {\author Administrator}{\operator kgalenda}{\creatim\yr2009\mo6\dy4\hr16\min36}{\revtim\yr2009\mo6\dy5\hr11\min18}{\version4}{\edmins9}{\nofpages3}{\nofwords690}{\nofchars3939}{\*\company
JSI}{\nofcharsws4620}{\vern24689}}\paperw11906\paperh16838 \widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\hyphcaps0\formshade\horzdoc\dgmargin\dghspace180\dgvspace180\dghorigin1800\dgvorigin1440\dghshow1\dgvshow1 \jexpand\viewkind1\viewscale100\pgbrdrhead\pgbrdrfoot\splytwnine\ftnlytwnine\htmautsp\nolnhtadjtbl\useltbaln\alntblind\lytcalctblwd\lyttblrtgr\lnbrkrule\nobrkwrptbl\snaptogridincell\allowfieldendsel\wrppunct \asianbrkrule\rsidroot65853\newtblstyruls\nogrowautofit \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\insrsid13834396 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\insrsid13834396 \chftnsepc \par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\insrsid13834396 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\insrsid13834396 \chftnsepc \par }}\sectd \linex0\headery708\footery708\colsx708\endnhere\sectlinegrid360\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid12470469\sftnbj {\footer
\pard\plain \s16\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar \tqc\tx4153\tqr\tx8306\pvpara\phmrg\posxr\posy0\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10641860 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\field{\*\fldinst {\cs17\insrsid13834396 PAGE }}{\fldrslt { \cs17\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid2967338 2}}}{\cs17\insrsid13834396 \par }\pard \s16\ql \li0\ri360\widctlpar\tqc\tx4153\tqr\tx8306\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin360\lin0\itap0\pararsid13834396 {\insrsid13834396 \par }}{\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}} {\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8 \pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \s15\qc \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1 \widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid8393862 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\b\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid65853\charrsid13834396 THE REPUBLIC OF
UGANDA }{ \b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid65853\charrsid13834396 \line IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid65853\charrsid13834396 KAMPALA \line }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid65853\charrsid13834396 (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) \line CIVIL SUIT NO. 276 OF 2001 \line HWANG SUNG INDUSTRIES LTD}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8393862 ::::::::}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid65853\charrsid13834396 :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: }{ \b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid65853\charrsid13834396 PLAINTIFF \line VERSUS \line }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8393862 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid13834396 {\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid65853\charrsid13834396 1. TAJDIN }{ \b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8393862\charrsid13834396 HUSSEIN\}}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid65853\charrsid13834396 \line }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid65853\charrsid8393862 2. RAINBOW}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid65853\charrsid13834396 }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid65853\charrsid13834396 FOODS }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8393862\charrsid13834396 LTD\}}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid65853\charrsid13834396 \line
}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid65853\charrsid13834396 3. }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid65853\charrsid8393862 NIZAR}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid65853\charrsid13834396 }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8393862\charrsid13834396 HUSSEIN\}}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8393862 ::::::::::::::::}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid65853\charrsid13834396 ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid65853\charrsid13834396 DEFENDANTS \line }{ \b\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid65853\charrsid13834396 BEFORE }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid65853\charrsid13834396 : }{\b\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8393862 THE HON. MR. J}{ \b\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid65853\charrsid13834396 USTICE OKUMU WENGI. \line JUDGMENT: }{\b\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8393862 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8393862\charrsid8393862 The}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid65853\charrsid8393862 }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid65853\charrsid13834396 Plaintiff is a local manufacturer of Ice Cream. It placed an order with the Defendants in December 2000 for Orange Oil Flavour, an ingredient used for spicing the premier brand \'93 Cool Cool Bar\'94. A sum of US$ 8,000 was paid to the defendants as 50% pat payment for the consignment
ordered after the sample had been provided. The defendant then supplied the goods. However, the plaintiff on examination were not satisfied with the substance supplied and subjected them to internal and National Standards Bureau examination. As a result they rejected the goods and demand a refund of US$ 8,000 so far paid, expenses incurred and costs of}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8393862 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid65853\charrsid13834396 the suit. The defendant denied liability contending that the goods supplied complied with the samples and the plaintiff on delivery took three days before voicing their complaint. The defendant then counterclaimed for the balance of the contract price namely US$ 8 ,000. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8393862 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid65853\charrsid13834396 At the trial four issues were framed but in essence the question for discussion of this court is whether the defendant is liable in the circumstances to pay US$ 8,000 to the plaintiff, and whether the defendant should be made to pay for the goods. D uring the trial the plaintiff presented three witnesses and seven exhibits in all, while the defendant called one witness and presented three exhibits. \line Mr. Willy Musinguzi (PWI) the Quality Assurance Officer with UNBS testified that he examined the questi oned substance on
7/3/2001 in their containers. He observed rusting and labelling anomalies on the drums. Certain painted erasures obliterated the origin and concealed labelling date. The contents were also examined by him and another colleague, and it wa s found that the substance contained suspended matter that was insoluble. The analysis led them to deny the substance a guarantee of the safety of the product which appeared to have deteriorated in storage. He appeared to be knowledgeable and reliable witn ess whose sense of suspicion for product contamination was developed and expressed. Then the internal Quality Control analy}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2967338 sis in the plaintiff\rquote s company -}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid65853\charrsid13834396 Mr. Kaviri Dentons also testified to the suspended matter that led him to reject the raw material out right. His testimony was bolstered by Tenywa Moses Quality Controller who was throughout emphatic and eloquently firm on the rejection of the substance supplied. He was a reliable witness in court and seemed to be an asset to his employers and the Cool Co ol Bar fans for his candid decisions on raw material input for ice cream. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2967338 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid65853\charrsid13834396 For the defendant, Nizar Hussein testified that what was supplied was
orange oil not orange flavour, and that this was the substance orde}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2967338 red for by the plaintiff. He }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid65853\charrsid13834396 testified that their suppliers clarified on the substance. He also stated that to his knowledge there was no serious complaint against the goods supplied. \line } {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2967338 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid65853\charrsid13834396 On the evidence before this court, I have been able to conclude that the goods supplied by the defendant to the plaintiff were not fit for the purpose for which the plaintiff ordered them. I also believe the plaintiff\rquote s witnesses that the substance was not desirable and that the plaintiff should not be forced to pay for goods that they would not use, except is they were willing to connive to do possible harm to the ice cream consuming public that use their Cool Cool Bar brand. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2967338 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid65853\charrsid13834396 In essence therefore this court holds the considered view that the plaintiff was entitled to reject the goods in the circumstances and to cla im a refund of the money it had paid as deposit for the purchase of the raw material. I am not prepared to order the plaintiff to keep the goods ad to pay
more money for them. En the result, I enter Judgment against the Defendant in the sum of US$ 8,000; S hs. 40,000/= being costs of UNBS analysis report. Interest on the above at 6% on the dollar sum from 15/12/2000; Interest on Shs. 40,000/= at 15% from 7/3/2001, all till payment in full. I will also order the defendant to pay Shs. 1,500,000/= as general d amages and to pay costs of this suit in which the counterclaim is dismissed for lack of evidence. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2967338 \par }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid65853\charrsid13834396 R. O. OKUMU WENGI \line JUDGE \line 25/09/2002. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid65853\charrsid13834396 \par }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13834396 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid65853\charrsid13834396 \par }}
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.