Wakilii

Entebbe Handling Services v Uganda Fish Packers (Civil Appeal No. 0030 of 2010)

Court of Appeal · [2018] UGCA 262 · 2018 Appeal Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from High Court judgment in a suit for breach of contract and recovery of money
Decision
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside and respondent's entire claim dismissed

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding no evidence of negligence or breach of contract by the appellant cargo-handler. As the appellant had loaded almost the entire fish consignment (36,800 kilograms) successfully, with only 9,494 kilograms rejected in Europe, no breach was established. The court held the trial judge failed to properly evaluate the evidence: the claimed damages were neither specified nor particularised as special damages, the value of the rejected fish was not proved, and there was no proof of when or where the fish reached an unacceptable temperature. The general damages and interest awards could not stand. The High Court judgment was set aside and the respondent's claim dismissed with costs.

Facts

On about 12 September 1998 the respondent, Uganda Fish Packers, delivered 36,800 kilograms of fish to the appellant, Entebbe Handling Services, the only cargo handling agent at Entebbe airport, for loading onto a chartered aircraft for export to Europe. Under their contractual relationship, loading the cargo was the appellant's responsibility, while the respondent's obligation was to deliver the fish at Entebbe, to be completed at least one hour before departure. No agreement was executed, but the respondent paid Shs.45,830 as handling and bond fees. The estimated departure time was 04:00am, and the fish was delivered in good condition. The chartered plane arrived about four hours and twenty minutes late. The fish was kept on the tarmac for a period before loading. Upon delivery to the respondent's customers in Europe, 9,494 kilograms were rejected for being above the accepted temperature. The respondent sued for the value of the rejected fish, general damages and interest, and obtained judgment in the High Court.

Issues

  1. Whether the appellant was negligent and in breach of its duty of care.
  2. Whether the learned trial judge failed to properly evaluate the evidence.
  3. Whether the award of interest at 20% per annum was inordinately high and excessive.

Orders

  • The judgment and decree of the High Court is set aside and substituted with this judgment dismissing the respondent's entire claim.
  • The respondent shall pay costs at this court and at the lower court.

Key headnotes

Negligence — Bailment of Goods — Duty of Care of Cargo Handler
A cargo handling agent owes a duty to ensure that goods entrusted to it are handled with utmost care to avoid damage, but no breach is established where the agent successfully discharges the substantial bulk of its handling obligation and only a small portion of the consignment is rejected.
Special Damages — Requirement to Plead and Strictly Prove
Special damages must be specifically pleaded, particularised and strictly proved by evidence; a claimed sum that is neither specified nor proved by evidence of value cannot be awarded.
Proof of Causation — Burden to Establish Where and When Damage Occurred
Where damage to goods may have resulted from intervening circumstances after the defendant's involvement, the plaintiff must prove the precise point at which the goods became damaged; failure to prove the time and place of damage defeats a claim founded on the defendant's alleged breach.
First Appeal — Duty to Re-evaluate Evidence
A first appellate court is required to re-appraise the evidence and reach its own inferences on all issues of law and fact, while remaining mindful that it did not observe the demeanour of the witnesses.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Civil Procedure Act s.25
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules r.30

Cases cited (8)

  • BAT (1984) v Selestino Mushongore (Civil Appeal No. 26 of 1994)
  • BM Technical Services v Crescent Transporters (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2002)
  • Kifomunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Bogere Moses & Anor v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Jacob Mathew V State of Punjab and Anor, Appeal (Crl.) 144-145 of 2004
  • Wall Stainer vs Whah, (1945) Queens Bench 188
  • Rwemicandoro Shinon and Anor Vs Marksmovey Alokdep Rovik, Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2003
  • Sietco v Noble Builders (Uganda) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 81 of 1995)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.