Departed Asians Property Custodian Board v Bukenya (Civil Appeal 26 of 1992)

Supreme Court · [1993] UGSC 38 · 1993 Appeal Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Civil appeal from an ex-parte judgment of the High Court

Decision

Appeal allowed; trial court judgment set aside and a judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claim with costs substituted.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 8 (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 allowed the appeal. Although the trial court found the Board had acted wrongfully, it had awarded the value of the goods and lost income that the plaint did not support. The plaint sought only return of the goods (a claim in detinue) and general damages for trespass to goods, loss of licence and loss of business, none of which was properly pleaded or particularised. Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved, and a court cannot grant remedies unsupported by the pleadings, even in ex-parte proceedings. The court should have required amendment of the plaint, served on the defendant, rather than award unpleaded remedies. The trial judgment was set aside.

Facts

The respondent was the lawful occupant of a shop on William Street, Kampala, allocated to him although the premises fell under the appellant Board's jurisdiction. In 1987 the Board terminated his occupation and re-allocated the shop to another person, and his personal property was locked inside the shop. The Board directed an agent to open the premises so the respondent could remove his property, but the agent failed to do so and the respondent could not recover his goods. He sued in 1988 seeking recovery of his property and general damages for trespass to property, loss of the benefit of his licence, and loss of business. The Board did not appear to defend, and judgment was entered ex-parte awarding the respondent Shs 14,602,210 as the value of the property and Shs 960,000 for lost income, plus interest and costs. The Board appealed, contending that the plaint did not support the remedies granted.

Issues

Whether the trial court could award the value of the goods where the plaint sought only the return of the goods in detinue and not their value.
Whether the awards of special damages (value of property and lost income) and general damages for loss of business were supported by the pleadings.
What is the duty of the court when conducting ex-parte proceedings in which the pleadings do not support the remedies prayed for.

Orders

Appeal allowed.
Judgment of the trial court set aside.
Judgment dismissing the claim with costs substituted therefor.
Costs of the appeal awarded to the appellant.
Each party to bear its own costs of the lower court / ex-parte proceedings.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Special Damages Must Be Specifically Pleaded and Strictly Proved

Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved, and the distinction between general and special damages must be satisfactorily pleaded; a court cannot award special damages that have not been so pleaded.

Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Remedies Must Be Supported by the Body of the Plaint

A court cannot grant a remedy that is not supported by the allegations and prayers in the body of the plaint; remedies granted as prayed but unsupported by the pleadings cannot stand.

Tort Law — Detinue, Conversion and Trespass to Goods — Distinct Causes of Action and Remedies

Detinue, conversion and trespass to goods are distinct causes of action; a plaintiff must plead and seek the remedy appropriate to the cause relied upon, and a claim for damages for trespass to goods cannot supply a missing claim for the value of goods or damages for their detention in detinue.

Civil Procedure — Ex-parte Proceedings — Duty of the Court

In ex-parte proceedings the court must ensure the pleadings support the remedies sought; where they do not, it should require amendment of the plaint, which must be served on the defendant, who may then appear and defend, rather than grant unpleaded remedies.

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.