Musoke v Departed Asian's Property Custodian Board & Another (Civil Appeal 1 of 1992)

Supreme Court · [1992] UGSC 24 · 1992 Appeal Partly Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

First appeal from a High Court judgment in a civil suit for conversion of goods (H.C.C.S. No. 1355 of 1984)

Decision

Appeal allowed in part; trial court's measure of damages affirmed in principle and costs order against the plaintiff reversed in favour of payment by the first defendant

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 Supreme Court affirmed that the measure of damages for conversion is the value of the goods at the date of conversion. While a plaintiff may recover additional damages where goods rise in market value between conversion and judgment, such increase, being special damage, must be explicitly pleaded and strictly proved; the plaintiff had neither pleaded the increased value nor adduced sufficient proof, so the trial judge rightly used the date-of-conversion value. The appeal on damages was therefore rejected. However, the appeal on costs succeeded: because the plaintiff was reasonably placed in a dilemma by the first defendant's conduct in suing both defendants, the first defendant was ordered to pay the successful second defendant's costs.

Facts

The plaintiff rented a building in Masaka from an Asian landlord, paying rent. After the landlord left Uganda in 1974/1975, the first defendant, the Departed Asian's Property Custodian Board, took over the building and the plaintiff paid rent to it. In January 1984 the plaintiff travelled to Jinja, leaving his shop and stock-in-trade with an assistant. On 17 January 1984 an official of the first defendant, accompanied by a police constable, entered the premises, removed the plaintiff's properties, locked the shop and sleeping quarters, and re-allocated part of the premises to the second defendant. The plaintiff sued both defendants for the value of his converted goods and loss of earnings. The trial judge accepted the plaintiff's evidence on the quantum of goods but valued them at 1984 figures rather than 1991 values, awarded special damages against the first defendant, dismissed the suit against the second defendant, and ordered the plaintiff to pay the second defendant's costs.

Issues

Whether the measure of damages for the tort of conversion is the value of the property at the time of conversion or its current value at the time of judgment.
Whether the plaintiff proved the value of the converted properties so as to recover any increase in their market value.
Whether the trial judge erred in awarding the second defendant's costs against the plaintiff.

Orders

Appeal allowed in part.
Judgment of the lower court set aside in so far as it concerns the measure of damages.
Order as to costs varied so that the costs of the second defendant, both on appeal and in the court below, be paid by the first defendant.

Key headnotes

Tort Law — Conversion — Measure of Damages — Date of Valuation

The measure of damages for the tort of conversion is the value of the converted goods at the time of the conversion.

Tort Law — Conversion — Measure of Damages — Rise in Market Value

A plaintiff may recover additional damages where the converted goods have risen in market value between the date of conversion and judgment, but such increase, being special damage, must be explicitly pleaded.

Evidence — Special Damages — Pleading and Strict Proof

Special damage must always be explicitly claimed in the pleadings and strictly proved by evidence that the loss was incurred and was the direct result of the defendant's conduct.

Civil Procedure — Costs — Discretion of the Court

Costs are in the discretion of the court under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act and normally follow the event, but where a plaintiff was reasonably placed in a dilemma by one defendant's conduct in joining a co-defendant later found not liable, the court may order that defendant to pay the successful co-defendant's costs.

Civil Procedure — Joinder of Defendants — Common Question of Law or Fact

Persons may be joined as defendants where a right to relief arising out of the same transaction is alleged and a common question of law or fact would arise if separate suits were brought, under Order 1 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Legislation cited (2)

Civil Procedure Act s.27
Civil Procedure Rules Order 1 rule 3

Cases cited (8)

Caxton v Sunderland [1934] A.C. 178
Rosenthal v Alderton [1946] 1 All E.R. 585
Sacks v Miklos [1948] 2 K.B. 23; [1948] 1 All E.R. 67
Munro v Wilmott [1948] 2 All E.R. 983
Solloway v McLaughlin [1937] A.C. 247 (P.C.)
Henderson v Williams [1895] 1 Q.B. 521
Daniel Sempa Mbabale v W.K. Kiza & Others [1985] H.C.B. 46
Hillesden Securities Ltd v Ryjak Ltd [1983] 2 All E.R. 184

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.