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
K. Rogers Ltd v Spedag Interfeight (U) Ltd (Civil Suit No. 339 of 2012) [2015] UGCommC 53 (13 March 2015)
The High Court found the plaintiff failed to prove nondelivery of part of its cargo and dismissed the suit, while allowing the defendant’s tax reimbursement counterclaim.
Namutebi v Three ways Shipping Services Uganda Limited and Another (Civil Suit No. 143 of 2008) [2010] UGHC 242 (7 July 2010)
The High Court held that only the second defendant contracted to carry the plaintiff’s cargo, found breach when the goods were destroyed in transit, and awarded special damages.
Kamagara Charles v Uganda Railways Corporation (Civil Suit No.846 of 2005) (Civil Suit No.846 of 2005) [2009] UGHC 4 (5 February 2009)
The court found that the plaintiff had proved, on a balance of probabilities, that the defendant took over the specified quantity of sugar at Mwanza, Tanzania, and delivered less than that quantity in Kampala, Uganda. The consignment notes, tally sheets, and invoices were accepted as credible evidence of the contract and the loss. The defendant failed to provide a valid explanation for the shortfall, and the court rejected the argument that the loss could have occurred before the defendant's custody. The court distinguished the cited Agrovalue Processors Impex (U) Ltd v URC case, finding that…
Source excerpt
Agro Value Processors Impex (U) Ltd v Uganda Railways Corporation (HCT-00-CC-CS 251 of 2005) [2008] UGCommC 36 (25 June 2008)
The court found that the Defendant, Uganda Railways Corporation, was not liable for the alleged loss of goods. The evidence showed that the container seals were intact upon arrival and verification, suggesting that any tampering or shortage occurred before the Defendant took possession. The loss adjuster's report was not supported by physical evidence such as photographs, and the Defendant's investigation indicated that the shortage could only be ascertained from records at the port of origin. The court also overruled the Defendant's preliminary objection regarding limitation, noting it was n…
Source excerpt
Lubega and Anor v Uganda Railways Corporation (Civil Suit No.719 of 2002) [2004] UGHC 35 (15 November 2004)
The court found that the defendant, Uganda Railways Corporation, was in breach of the contract of carriage by failing to deliver the goods as agreed. The evidence, including the police report and the circumstances of delivery, established that the container was empty upon arrival and that the defendant could not satisfactorily explain the loss or rebut the presumption of negligence. The defendant's reliance on flat-rate carriage and lack of verification did not absolve it of liability as a common carrier. The court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the value of the missing goo…
Source excerpt
B.M. Technical Services Ltd v Crescent Transporters Co.Ltd (Civil Appeal 8 of 2002) [2003] UGSC 53 (23 October 2003)
The Supreme Court upheld liability for contractual detention charges in a carriage dispute, but reduced interest from 22% to 10% per annum.
B.M. Technical Services Ltd v Crescent Transporters Co. Ltd [2003] UGSC 33 (22 October 2003)
The Supreme Court upheld damages for carriage-of-goods breach but reduced interest from 22% to 10%, finding the lower court’s rate excessive.
Boazman and Another v Hon. Attorney General of Uganda (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1941) [1941] EACA 3 (1 January 1941)
The Court of Appeal held that under the Indian Contract Act, sections 151 and 152, a bailee's standard of care may be contractually modified, including reduction below the statutory norm, by special contract. The exclusion clause in the present case was clear and unambiguous, expressly exempting the carrier from liability for loss, including that caused by its own or its servants' negligence. The Court further held that such exclusion clauses are not void as contrary to public policy, as established by both Indian and English authorities. The appellants, having agreed to the exclusion clause…
Source excerpt
Angelopoulos v General Manager, Kenya and Uganda Railway (C.A. 14/1929 (Msa.).) [1929] EACA 114 (1 January 1929)
The court held that sections 36(1) and 40 of the Kenya and Uganda Railway Ordinance, 1927, were not inconsistent and dismissed the appeal.
