Wakilii

Departed Asians Property Custodian Board v Issa Bukenya [1993] UGSC 14

Supreme Court · 1993 Appeal Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from an ex parte judgment of the High Court at Kampala
Decision
Appeal allowed; trial court judgment set aside and the claim dismissed with costs to the appellant.

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 respondent obtained an ex parte High Court judgment awarding the value of goods locked in his shop and lost business income. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that a court cannot grant remedies unsupported by the pleadings, even where the defendant does not appear. The plaint claimed only return of the goods (detinue) and damages for trespass; it did not plead the value of the goods, damages for detention, or any business loss, and special damages were neither specifically pleaded nor strictly proved. The trial judge should have required amendment of the plaint, served on the defendant, rather than grant unpleaded relief. The trial judgment was set aside and the claim dismissed.

Facts

The respondent occupied a shop on William Street, Kampala, premises falling under the appellant Board's jurisdiction. In 1987 the Board, asserting non-payment of rent, terminated the respondent's occupation and re-allocated the shop to another person. The respondent's personal property had been locked inside the shop by a security guard, Kakooza. The Board directed Kakooza to open the shop so the respondent could remove his property, but Kakooza did not comply. When the new occupant took over, she and the Board denied any knowledge of the respondent's goods, and the respondent lost his property. He sued for recovery of the property, general damages for trespass to property, loss of the benefit of his trading licence, and loss of business, plus interest and costs. The Board did not appear to defend. The trial judge, on ex parte evidence, awarded 14,602,210/= as the value of the property, 960,000/= for lost average income, and 12% interest. The Board appealed.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial court could award the value of the goods as special damages when the plaint pleaded only recovery of the goods and damages for trespass, and the value was neither specifically pleaded nor strictly proved.
  2. Whether the award for loss of business income was supported by any allegation or particulars in the plaint.
  3. Whether a court may grant remedies not supported by the pleadings in ex parte proceedings.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Judgment and decree of the High Court set aside.
  • Judgment dismissing the claim with costs substituted.
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the appellant.
  • Each party to bear its own costs of the ex parte proceedings in the lower court.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Relief Confined to What Is Pleaded
A court cannot grant remedies that are not supported by the pleadings; relief granted as prayed must be founded on allegations in the body of the plaint.
Civil Procedure — Damages — Special Damages Must Be Specifically Pleaded and Strictly Proved
Special damages, including the value of goods, must be specifically pleaded with particulars and strictly proved, and the distinction between general and special damages must be satisfactorily pleaded.
Tort Law — Goods — Distinction Between Detinue, Trespass and Conversion
A claim for the value of goods and damages for their detention lies in detinue; a claim for damages for trespass to goods cannot supply the remedies proper to detinue, as the causes of action are distinct.
Civil Procedure — Ex Parte Proceedings — Duty of the Court
In ex parte proceedings the court must ensure that the pleadings support the prayers sought; where they do not, it should require amendment of the plaint, which must be served on the defendant who may then appear, rather than grant unpleaded relief.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Currency Reform Statute 1987

Cases cited (1)

  • General and Finance Facilities Ltd v Cooks Cars (Romford) Ltd [1963] 1 WLR 644
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.