Uganda Case Law

Nambale, Nerima & Co. Advocates v Liberty General Insurance Uganda Limited (TAT Application 5 of 2023)

Nambale, Nerima & Co. Advocates v Liberty General Insurance Uganda Limited (TAT Application 5 of 2023) [2024] UGIAT 2 (9 February 2024)

Court

Insurance Appeals Tribunal (Uganda)

Case number

TAT Application 5 of 2023

Judges

Nangono Namakiika, chairperson, Mayinja. Panel Member, Okotha, Panel Member, Mayanja

The Tribunal found that there was no valid contract of insurance between the Appellant and the Respondent for the period in question. The evidence showed that no premium was paid for the renewal period, and the regulatory framework, as reinstated by the Insurance Regulatory Authority's public notice of May 2021, required payment of premium before policy inception or renewal. The Certificate of Insurance produced by the Appellant was a Motor Third Party certificate and not a comprehensive policy, lacking the essential features of an insurance contract. The Tribunal further found that Sheila Tu…

Source excerpt

• Insurance Contracts
• Premium Payment
• Agency Law
• Contract Formation
• Regulatory Compliance

Nile Fibre v Baguma

Nile Fibre v Baguma (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2020) [2022] UGHCCD 86 (1 March 2022)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2020

Judge

Byaruhanga Rugyema, J

The High Court allowed an appeal, holding that Sarapio Tumusiime acted as an independent contractor, not an agent, so the appellant was not liable for the respondents' timber claim.

• Agency Law
• Vicarious Liability
• Independent Contractor
• Quantum Meruit
• Ostensible Authority
• Agency-law

NIS Protection (U) Ltd v Nkumba University -

NIS Protection (U) Ltd v Nkumba University - (Civil Suit No. 604 of 2004) [2006] UGCommC 20 (15 May 2006)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Suit No. 604 of 2004

The court found that the contract for provision of security services was binding on the defendant under the indoor management rule, as the security officer had apparent authority to act on behalf of the university. The plaintiff was entitled to assume the officer had the necessary authority, and the defendant was vicariously liable for its employee's acts performed in the course of employment. However, the plaintiff failed to strictly prove special damages, as the claimed expenses for recruitment, transportation, and accommodation were remote and unsupported by evidence. The court awarded gen…

Source excerpt

• Breach Of Contract
• Agency Law
• Vicarious Liability
• Company Law
• Damages
• Contractual Authority

Were Fred v Kaga Ltd (HCT-00-CC-CS 530 of 2004)

Were Fred v Kaga Ltd (HCT-00-CC-CS 530 of 2004) [2005] UGCommC 79 (23 December 2005)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

HCT-00-CC-CS 530 of 2004

The High Court found that Muyingo had ostensible authority to sell a company vehicle, holding Kaga Ltd bound by the sale and awarding damages and interest to the buyer.

• Sale Of Goods
• Agency Law
• Ostensible Authority
• Transfer Of Title
• Damages
• Motor Vehicle Transactions

Dr James Kashugyera Tumwine and Anor v Sr Willie Magara and Anor (HCT-00-CC-CS 576 of 2004)

Dr James Kashugyera Tumwine and Anor v Sr Willie Magara and Anor (HCT-00-CC-CS 576 of 2004) [2005] UGCommC 35 (27 June 2005)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

HCT-00-CC-CS 576 of 2004

The court held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover the purchase price from the defendants because the estate agent, Kasulu Property Masters, had no express or implied authority from the defendants to receive payment on their behalf. The sale agreement's acknowledgment of payment was conditional upon the defendants actually receiving the funds, which never occurred. The court found that the plaintiffs, having paid the agent without verifying the agent's authority or seeking confirmation from the defendants, bore the risk of the agent's default. The law of agency requires clear aut…

Source excerpt

• Agency Law
• Sale Of Land
• Money Had And Received
• Implied Authority
• Contractual Remedies

Uttamchand and Co. Ltd v Hawkes and Co. Ltd

Uttamchand and Co. Ltd v Hawkes and Co. Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 45 of 1954) [1955] EACA 287 (1 January 1955)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 45 of 1954

Judge

O'Connor CJ, Sir Enoch Jenkins, JA, Worley VP

The Court held that the respondent, acting as a confirming house agent, had not exceeded its authority nor failed in its duty by accepting delivery of goods that included a slight excess in quantity and were delivered marginally late. The contract expressly exempted the respondent from liability for 'incorrect out-turn,' and the appellant failed to prove that the excess quantity fell outside this exemption. The evidence did not establish that delivery was late or that any delay was commercially significant. The agent's duty was to act with reasonable skill and diligence, and the respondent ha…

Source excerpt

• Agency Law
• Sale Of Goods
• Contractual Liability
• Principal Agent Duties
• Late Delivery
• Excess Quantity

Preston v Ortlepp (C.A. 10/1934.)

Preston v Ortlepp (C.A. 10/1934.) [1937] EACA 119 (1 January 1937)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

C.A. 10/1934.

Judge

Law, C.J (Zanzibar), Lucie-Smith Ag CJ (Kenya), Webb, J

The Court of Appeal upheld a finding that rent was Sh. 300 per month and held that a tenant could not rely on an unauthorized lower-rent arrangement without ratification.

• Contract Of Lease
• Agency Law
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Lease-agreements
• Agency-law
• Evidence-admissions

Ditta v Eagle Star and British Dominions Insurance Co. Ltd (C.C. 120/1933.)

Ditta v Eagle Star and British Dominions Insurance Co. Ltd (C.C. 120/1933.) [1933] EACA 14 (1 January 1933)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

C.C. 120/1933.

Judge

Lane, Ag. J

The court found that the plaintiff did not disclose the true facts to the agent and that the agent, Thanawalla, was not aware of the falsity of the answers in the proposal form. Even if the plaintiff had dictated true answers, by signing the proposal form without reading it, he adopted its contents and is bound by them. The law requires utmost good faith in insurance contracts, and the truth of statements in the proposal form is a condition precedent to the contract. The agent, when filling in the form at the plaintiff's request, acted as the plaintiff's amanuensis, not as the insurer's agent…

Source excerpt

• Insurance Contracts
• Misrepresentation
• Agency Law
• Duty Of Disclosure

Birumi Wilson v Akamba (Uganda) Ltd

Birumi Wilson v Akamba (Uganda) Ltd [1995] UGSC 4 (21 June 1995)

Court

Supreme Court of Uganda

The Supreme Court held that there was no contractual relationship between the appellant and the respondent. The contract for the sale of the tractor and accessories was between the appellant and Massey Ferguson (UK), as evidenced by the proforma invoice, the direct payment through the bank, and the absence of any consideration moving between the appellant and the respondent. The respondent merely facilitated the transaction and did not act as a contracting party or agent in the relevant sense. The trial judge correctly applied the common law principles of offer, acceptance, and consideration,…

Source excerpt

• Privity Of Contract
• Agency Law
• Joinder Of Parties
• Adjournment Discretion