Wakilii

Esso Standard(U) Ltd v Semu Amanu Opio

Supreme Court · [1993] UGSC 15 · 1993 Appeal Partly Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from a High Court judgment for breach of contract and detinue
Decision
Appeal allowed in part; the punitive element of the High Court award set aside and the damages varied, with the total award reduced to shs 17,171,299/=

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (treatment unverified) Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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 held that exemplary or punitive damages cannot be awarded for breach of contract: there is no precedent or principle for extending the exemplary-damages categories fixed in Rookes v Barnard and accepted in East Africa through Obongo v Kisumu Council. The trial judge's award of 15,000,000/= general damages, which included a punitive element, was set aside. On the detinue claim the Court confirmed that the value of detained goods is assessed at the date of judgment, and applied the Currency Reform Statute 1987 to the money owed. Only nominal damages were allowed for the breach, the respondent having failed to prove his lost profit. Appeal allowed in part.

Facts

The respondent managed a petrol station for the appellant company under a 1982 agreement which provided that his services could only be terminated on six months' notice. In December 1986 the company terminated his services within a fortnight, requiring him to hand over to renovators carrying out repairs. Because of the short period, the respondent left behind substantial property, including fuel stock, a safe and various items. The company asserted the right to terminate at short notice on grounds of absenteeism and the poor condition of the station, but the trial judge found these complaints exaggerated and held that the real reason was that costly repairs were to be carried out on condition the respondent was replaced. The judge found the company in breach of the contract and liable in detinue, awarding 15,000,000/= general damages stated to include a punitive element, together with special damages for the detained goods. The company appealed against the punitive award and the assessment of the detinue items.

Issues

  1. Whether exemplary or punitive damages may be awarded for breach of contract.
  2. Whether the value of goods detained in detinue is assessed at the date of breach or the date of judgment.
  3. How the Currency Reform Statute 1987 applies to the various heads of the award, given the drafting error in section 2(a).
  4. What measure of damages is recoverable for breach of the contractual notice period.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed in part.
  • Award for the value of the fuel and lubricants varied to shs 10,780,000/=.
  • Award for the small items confirmed at shs 183,500/=.
  • Award for the safe and its contents set at shs 6,140,000/=.
  • Award for the money owed on the respondent's account set at shs 17,798/74 (17,799/= to the nearest shilling).
  • Nominal damages of shs 50,000/= awarded for breach of contract in place of the set-aside punitive award.
  • Total award of shs 17,171,299/=.
  • Each party to bear its own costs of the appeal.
  • Decree of the High Court to be re-taxed.

Key headnotes

Damages — Exemplary or Punitive Damages — Availability for Breach of Contract
Exemplary or punitive damages cannot be awarded for breach of contract; there is no precedent or principle warranting the extension of the exemplary-damages principle to contractual claims.
Damages — Exemplary Damages — Categories under Rookes v Barnard
The award of exemplary damages is confined to the categories recognised in Rookes v Barnard — oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional action by servants of the government, and conduct calculated to make a profit exceeding the compensation at risk — and East African courts adopt this limitation through Obongo v Kisumu Council without further extension.
Damages — Aggravated Distinguished from Exemplary Damages
Aggravated damages are compensatory and distinct from exemplary damages; a tribunal must first fix the sum needed to compensate the plaintiff, including for injury to feelings, before considering whether any additional punitive sum is required.
Detinue — Date of Assessment of Value of Detained Goods
In detinue the cause of action continues up to the date of judgment, and the value of the detained chattels is assessed as at the date of judgment, not the date of breach; Milliangos v George Frank (Textiles) Ltd did not displace this rule.
Currency Reform Statute 1987 — Correction of Drafting Error
Under section 2(a) of the Currency Reform Statute 1987 a transaction in old currency is deemed made in new currency at the conversion rate in section 1(b); the reference to section 1(2) is a drafting error, corrected by corrigendum and consistently read by the courts as section 1(b).
Damages — Breach of Notice Period — Nominal Damages where Loss Unproved
Where a plaintiff fails to prove the profit he would have earned during the contractual notice period, only nominal damages are recoverable for the breach.
Hearing — Right of Parties to Address the Court before Judgment
Parties are entitled to address the court in final submissions before judgment is delivered under Order 16 rules 2 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and a failure to allow such address is an irregularity attributable to the court rather than to counsel.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Currency Reform Statute 1987 (No. 2 of 1987) s.2(a)
  • Currency Reform Statute 1987 (No. 2 of 1987) s.1(b)
  • Currency Reform Statute 1987 (No. 2 of 1987) s.3
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 16 rr.2 & 3

Cases cited (11)

  • Cassell & Co Ltd v Broome (1972) 1 All E.R. 801
  • Rookes v Barnard (1964) A.C. 1129
  • Mafo v Adams (1970) 1 Q.B. 548
  • Obongo v Kisumu Municipal Council (1971) E.A. 91
  • Drane v Evangelou (1978) 1 W.L.R. 455
  • Hayes v Dodd (1990) 2 All E.R. 815
  • Kishen Singh v Makima Masimba (1951) 18 E.A.C.A. 12
  • Rosenthal v Alderton (1946) K.B. 374
  • General and Finance Facilities Ltd v Cooks (Romford) Ltd (1963) 1 W.L.R. 644
  • Mohamed Ali Kanji Dharamshi v Ratnakarsan (Civil Appeal No. 37 of 1973)
  • Milliangos v George Frank (Textiles) Ltd (1976) A.C. 443
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.