Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Uganda decisions
Decisions matching the current search
COSCO Shipping LINES (Kenya) Limited v Synthomer Trading Limited & 3 Others (Civil Suit 107 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 1082 (4 December 2024)
The High Court found that the 1st Defendant used a forged bill of lading to obtain cargo, treated it as stolen goods, and awarded damages, interest, and costs.
Senono v Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Cause 52 of 2024) [2024] UGCommC 321 (25 October 2024)
The court found that the Applicant was not the legal owner of the goods in question because the bill of lading named Edison Group International as consignee and owner. The Applicant's reliance on a sales agreement was insufficient to effect a legal transfer of ownership under the East African Community Customs Management Act and Regulations, which require both parties to complete and sign Form C16 and obtain the Commissioner's permission for transfer of warehoused goods. No evidence was provided that this procedure was followed. Therefore, the Applicant had no legal standing to demand release…
Source excerpt
Mesco Limited v Gulf Badr Group (U) Limited (Civil Suit 344 of 2020) [2024] UGCommC 336 (21 October 2024)
The court found that the Defendant, Gulf Badr Group (Uganda) Ltd, was merely an agent of the disclosed principal, Evergreen Line, as evidenced by the bill of lading and the communications between the parties. There was no contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant; the contractual relationship existed only between the Plaintiff and Evergreen Line. The Defendant's role was limited to acting as an agent, and the Plaintiff was aware of this status. Under established legal principles, an agent of a disclosed principal cannot be held liable for the principal's contractual obligations unless…
Source excerpt
Wen Jie v Nabimanya & Anor (Civil Suit No. 605 of 2014) [2018] UGCommC 62 (24 April 2018)
The court found that Bregah International Limited was the named consignee on the bill of lading, paid all taxes and transport costs, and was invoiced by the supplier. There was no credible evidence that Wen Jie or Amarachi General Commerce had ownership of the goods in dispute. The WhatsApp messages and other evidence presented by Wen Jie did not establish a valid arrangement for Bregah to act as a mere agent or nominee. Amarachi failed to provide any documentary proof of ownership or payment for the goods. The bill of lading, as a document of title, conferred the right to immediate possessio…
Source excerpt
line Ltd v Rapid Shipping & Freight (U) Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 314 of 2008) [2008] UGCommC 62 (25 September 2008)
The court found that the pleadings and the receipt issued by the defendant disclosed a cause of action against the defendant. Although the Bill of Lading named Rapid Freight International LLC as the carrier and the defendant as a notifying party and delivery agent, the plaintiff's pleadings alleged a separate agreement with the defendant for clearing, transporting, and delivering goods from Mombasa to Busia, evidenced by payment and receipt. The court distinguished this case from precedents where the agent was not a contracting party, noting that the issue of whether there was a contract betw…
Source excerpt
