Uganda National Roads Authority (UNRA) v Parambot Breweries Limited and Another (Civil Appeal 321 of 2019)

Court of Appeal · [2023] UGCA 300 · 2023 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Civil appeal from a High Court judgment on admission in a suit for negligence and encroachment

Decision

Appeal dismissed; the trial court's judgment on admission of UGX 31,484,904,247 against the appellant jointly and severally with the Attorney General was upheld

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this 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 dismissed UNRA's appeal. The limitation defence failed because UNRA never pleaded it, and parties are bound by their pleadings. The Attorney General's concession to the Chief Mechanical Engineer's report bound UNRA, a government agency under the general supervision of the Minister under s.5(3) of the UNRA Act. As the implementing agency for the national roads network under s.6, UNRA was liable in negligence despite not being party to the construction contract. The Transfer of Assets and Liabilities Regulations 2012 applied only to scheduled physical assets, not negligence or compensation claims. Judgment on admission of UGX 31,484,904,247 was properly entered under Order 13 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Facts

The respondents, owners of twin factories (a brewery and a distillery) situated on land along the Gayaza-Zirobwe Road, sued the Attorney General and the Uganda National Roads Authority jointly and severally for negligence and encroachment on their land. They alleged that during construction of the road the appellant caused injury to their premises and machinery. By consent of the parties, the Chief Mechanical Engineer of the Ministry of Works and Transport was engaged to reconcile two conflicting expert valuation reports on the extent of damage to the machinery. The appellant itself wrote the instruction letter to the Permanent Secretary requesting the determination. The Chief Mechanical Engineer produced a detailed report assessing compensation for the machinery damage at UGX 31,484,904,247, which the Attorney General conceded. The High Court entered judgment on admission against both defendants for that sum and directed the respondents to prove their remaining claims for the wall fence, housing structures and land. UNRA, the second defendant, appealed.

Issues

Whether the suit against the appellant was barred by limitation when the defence was raised only in submissions and not pleaded.
Whether the admission of the 1st defendant (the Attorney General) to the Chief Mechanical Engineer's report was binding on the appellant.
Whether the appellant is under the supervision of the Ministry of Works and Transport such that the Attorney General's opinion binds it.
Whether the appellant could be held liable in negligence arising from a construction contract to which it was not a party.
Whether the Uganda National Roads Authority (Transfer of Assets and Liabilities) Regulations 2012 applied to the dispute.
Whether the trial judge properly entered judgment on admission for UGX 31,484,904,247 under Order 13 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Orders

The appeal is dismissed.
The appellant, jointly and severally with the Attorney General, shall pay the respondents the sum of UGX 31,484,904,247 as contained in the Chief Mechanical Engineer's Report.
The respondents are awarded costs of the appeal and of the suit in the trial court.
The respondents are awarded interest on the principal sum at the court rate.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Limitation must be pleaded and cannot be raised only in submissions

Parties are bound by their pleadings under Order 6 rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and a defence of limitation that is not pleaded cannot be entertained; a trial judge cannot be faulted for failing to determine a limitation defence raised for the first time in the submissions of counsel.

Administrative Law — Attorney General — Binding nature of the Attorney General's opinion on government and its agencies

The opinion of the Attorney General regarding the laws of Uganda and their effect on any agreement or transaction is binding on government and public institutions and their agents, and a government agency cannot question or disclaim it where it affects the rights of third parties.

Administrative Law — Statutory bodies — Supervision of UNRA by the Minister under s.5(3) of the UNRA Act

Although the Uganda National Roads Authority is a body corporate that may sue and be sued in its own name, section 5(3) of the UNRA Act places it under the general supervision of the Minister of Works and Transport, so it remains a government agency bound by the position taken on its behalf by the Attorney General.

Tort Law — Negligence — Liability of a statutory implementing agency for works done by a contracted third party

As the implementing agency of government for the national roads network under section 6 of the UNRA Act, the Authority is liable in negligence for damage arising from road construction even where the works are executed by a contracted third party and the original construction contract pre-dated and did not name the Authority.

Statutory Interpretation — Transfer of assets regulations — Scope limited to scheduled physical assets

The Uganda National Roads Authority (Transfer of Assets and Liabilities) Regulations 2012 transfer only the physical assets and attendant liabilities listed in their Schedule and do not apply to claims in negligence or compensation, which are not assets within the meaning of the Regulations.

Civil Procedure — Judgment on admission — Order 13 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Under Order 13 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules a court may enter judgment on admission at any stage of a suit where an admission of fact has been made on the pleadings or otherwise, so as to enable a party to obtain speedy judgment to the extent of the relief admitted.

Legislation cited (15)

Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 Rule 30(1)
Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 Rule 86(1)
Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 Rule 92(1)
Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act s.3
Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act s.8
Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Amendment of the Third Schedule) Order SI No. 42 of 2012
Civil Procedure Rules O.6 r.7
Civil Procedure Rules O.13 r.6
Civil Procedure Rules O.1 r.14
Uganda National Roads Authority Act s.5
Uganda National Roads Authority Act s.6
Uganda National Roads Authority Act s.39
Constitution of the Republic of Uganda Article 119
Uganda National Roads Authority (Transfer of Assets and Liabilities) Regulations 2012 Reg.2
Uganda National Roads Authority (Transfer of Assets and Liabilities) Regulations 2012 Reg.3

Cases cited (10)

Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
Mohammed B Kasasa v Jasper Buyonga Sirasi (Civil Appeal No. 42 of 2008)
Nyeko and others v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 01 of 2016)
Jani Properties Ltd v Dar-es-Salaam City Council (1966) EA 281
Struggle Ltd v Pan African Insurance Co. Ltd (1990) ALR 46
Interfreight Forwarders (U) Ltd v East African Development Bank (Civil Appeal No. 33 of 1992)
Fidelis Kititi Kivaya and 2 others v Karanja Ihbage and another (Civil Application No. 21 of 2014)
Cassam v Sachania [1982] KLR 191
Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
National Social Security Fund and another v Alcon International Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2009)

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.