Uganda Case Law

Security 2000 Ltd Vs Cumberland

Security 2000 Ltd Vs Cumberland (Civil Appeal No.0916 of 2014) [2018] UGCA 79 (18 October 2018)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal No.0916 of 2014

The Court of Appeal held that Security 2000 Ltd was vicariously liable for the negligent acts of its guards, who, while on duty, facilitated a burglary at the respondent's premises. The evidence established that the guards breached both their contractual and tortious duties of care. The court found that the exemption clause in the contract limited liability for special damages to Ug. Shs. 500,000/= but did not exclude liability for general damages, especially in the context of a fundamental breach. The court emphasized that general damages are compensatory and at the discretion of the court,…

Source excerpt

• Vicarious Liability
• Negligence Of Employees
• Exemption Clauses
• Damages For Breach Of Contract
• Duty Of Care
• Contractual Interpretation

Kyotera Victoria Fishnets Ltd v Commisioner General URA & Anor

Kyotera Victoria Fishnets Ltd v Commisioner General URA & Anor (Civil Suit None of 2014) [2018] UGCommC 15 (15 May 2018)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Suit None of 2014

The High Court held that not all seized goods were released under a consent decree and ordered release or payment of their value, plus general damages and costs.

• Breach Of Consent Decree
• Release Of Seized Goods
• Damages For Breach Of Contract
• Burden Of Proof
• Interest On Awards
• Breach-of-consent-decree

Kyotera Victoria Fishnets Ltd v The Commissioner General, Uganda Revenue Authority

Kyotera Victoria Fishnets Ltd v The Commissioner General, Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Suit None of 2014) [2018] UGCommC 12 (15 May 2018)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Suit None of 2014

The High Court held that Uganda Revenue Authority failed to release all goods due under a consent decree and ordered release or payment, plus general damages and interest.

• Breach Of Consent Decree
• Release Of Seized Goods
• Damages For Breach Of Contract
• Burden Of Proof
• Breach-of-consent-decree
• Release-of-seized-goods

P&O Nedlloyd (U) Ltd v Tesco International Ltd

P&O Nedlloyd (U) Ltd v Tesco International Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 86/04) [2006] UGCA 60 (1 January 2006)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 86/04

Judge

Mpagi-Bahigeine, JA, Engwau, JA, Byamugisha, JA

The Court of Appeal found that the respondent failed to prove that the alleged theft or loss of goods occurred while the containers were in the control of the appellant. The evidence established that all ten containers were cleared by Customs officials at Dar-es-Salaam and handed over to the respondent's agent, who then contracted another carrier for onward transport to Kampala. The discrepancy in seal numbers was not treated as a fundamental breach, and there was no direct evidence that the containers were empty at the port of discharge. The possibility of loss or theft occurring after the c…

Source excerpt

• Carriage Of Goods By Sea
• Contractual Liability
• Burden Of Proof
• Damages For Breach Of Contract

Bhagwanji and Co. v Mohamedbhai and Co. Ltd

Bhagwanji and Co. v Mohamedbhai and Co. Ltd (Civil Suit No. 963 of 1952) [1953] EACA 3 (1 January 1953)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Civil Suit No. 963 of 1952

Judge

De Lestang J

The court held that an unpaid seller retained a lien while holding goods as bailee, could resell after notice and reasonable time, and that the resale price was fair.

• Sale Of Goods
• Unpaid Seller Lien
• Right Of Resale
• Damages For Breach Of Contract
• Sale-of-goods
• Unpaid-seller-lien

Pan African Trading Agencies v Chande Brothers Limited

Pan African Trading Agencies v Chande Brothers Limited (Civil Appeal No. 13 of 1952) [1952] EACA 141 (1 January 1952)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 13 of 1952

Judge

Mayers J, Nihill P, Worley VP

The Court of Appeal held that 'fair average quality' was an implied term of the contract, based on the entire course of dealings, prior offers, and the parties' understanding, even though the final written contract omitted the term. The Court found that the delivery of beans not of f.a.q. constituted a breach of contract. It further held that under section 32(3) of the Sale of Goods Ordinance, the respondents were entitled to reject only the portion of goods not conforming to the contract description, as the difference in quality in this case amounted to a difference in description. On damage…

Source excerpt

• Sale Of Goods
• Implied Terms
• Partial Rejection Of Goods
• Damages For Breach Of Contract
• Interest Awards
• Contractual Description

Patel v Lockyer and Another

Patel v Lockyer and Another (Civil Case No. 110 of 1950) [1951] EACA 342 (1 January 1951)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Civil Case No. 110 of 1950

Judge

Windham J

The court awarded unpaid salary, a loan, and payment for tools, but rejected a claim for one month’s salary in lieu of notice because no custom or damages were proved.

• Wrongful Dismissal
• Wages In Lieu Of Notice
• Custom And Usage
• Burden Of Proof
• Damages For Breach Of Contract
• Wrongful-dismissal

Absi v Kassim and Another

Absi v Kassim and Another (Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1956) [1950] EACA 382 (1 January 1950)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1956

Judge

Bacon, JA, Briggs, JA, Worley, P

The court held that a tenant’s re-entry right after rebuilding referred to the original site and similar area, but remitted the case to decide if later lettings were lawful.

• Landlord Tenant Disputes
• Specific Performance
• Damages For Breach Of Contract
• Tenancy Rights
• Rent Restriction
• Interpretation Of Contracts

Mohamed v Mwijamu (C.C. 47/1929 (Msa.))

Mohamed v Mwijamu (C.C. 47/1929 (Msa.)) [1929] EACA 53 (1 January 1929)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

C.C. 47/1929 (Msa.)

Judge

Thomas, J. (Kenya)

The court found that while subordinate courts have jurisdiction to order specific performance in suits relating to land within their pecuniary limits, the agreement in question was invalid under Mohammedan law due to uncertainty of the subject matter. The prior suit in the Magistrate's Court, where specific performance was ordered and no alternative relief was granted, rendered the present claims for return of deposit and damages res judicata. Furthermore, in the absence of deceit, the plaintiff is only entitled to recover the deposit with interest and costs if the vendor lacks good title, bu…

Source excerpt

• Specific Performance
• Jurisdiction Of Subordinate Courts
• Invalid Contracts
• Damages For Breach Of Contract