Wakilii

Sugar Corporation of Uganda Ltd. v Lawsam Chemical (U) Ltd. (Civil Appeal 5 of 2001)

Supreme Court · [2002] UGSC 38 · 2002 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second civil appeal from a Court of Appeal decision affirming the High Court's dismissal of a contract suit and grant of a counterclaim
Decision
Appeal dismissed; the lower courts' decisions, including the High Court judgment for the respondent on the counterclaim, upheld

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 Supreme Court dismissed the second appeal. The chemical supplied conformed to the specifications agreed between the parties, and the appellant, having applied it without the respondent's gratuitously offered expert supervision, relied on its own skill and judgment rather than the respondent's, so no implied condition of fitness under section 16(a) of the Sale of Goods Act arose. The burden of proving the chemical unfit lay on the appellant, not the respondent; the opinion of the appellant's own employee expert, uncorroborated by an external chemist, was insufficient to discharge it. The appellant took a deliberate risk in descaling without the expert and bore the consequences. The decisions of the courts below were upheld.

Facts

The appellant produced sugar at Lugazi using boilers that required periodic descaling. The respondent sold a descaling chemical, LSR Super Acid, manufactured by Diversey Lever (EA) Ltd of Nairobi, which had previously been used successfully under a manufacturer's expert. On 29 June 1999 the appellant engaged the respondent to descale two boilers using 6,000 litres of acid for about shs.30,000,000/=, paying shs.15,000,000/= up front; the respondent was to supply free expert supervision and the appellant the labour. Descaling was scheduled during the September 1999 factory shutdown. The expert arrived from Nairobi but did not supervise because a factory breakdown left the appellant unready, so he returned. To avoid further losses the appellant descaled one boiler itself, without supervision, using half the acid. Its manager concluded the descaling failed. The appellant cleaned the boilers mechanically, asked the respondent to take back the remaining acid, and demanded a refund. The respondent refused and demanded the unpaid balance.

Issues

  1. Whether the chemical (code named LSR Super Acid) supplied by the respondent was fit for the purpose of descaling the appellant's boilers.
  2. Whether the appellant was entitled to reject the chemical and claim damages for the supply of an allegedly ineffective chemical.
  3. Whether the burden of proving the fitness or unfitness of the chemical lay on the respondent or the appellant under sections 102 and 105 of the Evidence Act.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Decisions of the courts below upheld.
  • Respondent awarded its costs in the Supreme Court and in the courts below.

Key headnotes

Sale of Goods — Implied Condition of Fitness for Purpose — Reliance on Seller's Skill and Judgment
The implied condition of fitness for purpose under section 16(a) of the Sale of Goods Act does not arise where the buyer, being familiar with the goods and specifying them, relies on its own skill and judgment rather than on that of the seller.
Burden of Proof — Sections 102 and 105 of the Evidence Act — Buyer Alleging Goods Unfit
Where a buyer alleges that goods supplied were unfit for their purpose, the burden of proving unfitness lies on the buyer; section 105 of the Evidence Act does not shift that burden to the seller merely because the seller knows the secret composition of the goods.
Expert Evidence — Weight — Opinion of a Party's Own Employee
The opinion of a party's own employee, tendered as expert evidence, may be insufficient to prove a disputed technical fact where it is uncorroborated by an independent external expert, particularly where that employee's relevant expertise has not been independently tested.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Sale of Goods Act s.16(a)
  • Evidence Act s.102
  • Evidence Act s.105
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.