Tesco International Ltd v P&O Nedlloyd (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal 14 of 2007)

Supreme Court · [2009] UGSC 43 · 2009 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Second civil appeal to the Supreme Court from the Court of Appeal, which had reversed a High Court judgment in a suit for breach of a contract of carriage

Decision

Appeal dismissed with costs; Court of Appeal judgment confirmed

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 dismissed a second appeal in a suit over two allegedly empty containers from a consignment of batteries shipped from China to Dar es Salaam. The Court held that the respondent carrier's responsibility under the bill of lading ended at the port of discharge (Dar es Salaam), where the appellant's clearing agents received and cleared all ten containers without complaint before handing them to a second carrier for onward transport to Kampala. Any loss thereafter fell on the appellant, who had possession and control. The differing seals did not amount to a fundamental breach, as the appellant conceded the contents of the other eight containers were correct. The Court of Appeal had properly re-evaluated the evidence.

Facts

The appellant, a carrier of goods for hire, undertook to ship ten containers of batteries from China to Dar es Salaam under bill of lading No. PONLCANO 1100362 of 15 August 2002. The appellant alleged that, through the respondent's negligence or theft, two of the containers arrived empty, evidenced by the absence of batteries and by seal and label numbers on the containers differing from those on the bill of lading. The appellant's clearing agents received and cleared all ten containers at Dar es Salaam, the port of discharge, without lodging any complaint, and handed them to a second carrier, Uganda Railways Corporation, for onward transport to Kampala. The two containers were found empty only on verification in Kampala, conducted in the absence of the respondent. The appellant admitted the other eight containers held the correct batteries. The bill of lading stated "shipper's load, count and seal" and did not acknowledge the declared contents, the carrier not being represented when the containers were packed and sealed.

Issues

Whether the Court of Appeal erred in evaluating the evidence and in finding that the carrier had safely and securely delivered the ten containers.
Whether the difference between the seal numbers on the containers and those on the bill of lading constituted a fundamental breach of the contract of carriage.
Whether the evidence established that theft of the containers' contents occurred while the goods were in the respondent's custody between Dar es Salaam and Kampala.

Orders

Appeal dismissed.
The findings and orders of the Court of Appeal confirmed.
Costs awarded to the respondent in the Supreme Court and in the courts below.

Key headnotes

Carriage of Goods by Sea — Bill of Lading — Extent of Carrier's Liability

A carrier's responsibility under a contract of carriage is discharged once it delivers the containers into the hands of the consignee or his agent at the port of discharge named in the bill of lading; loss occurring after the consignee's agent takes possession cannot be attributed to the carrier.

Bill of Lading — Shipper's Load, Count and Seal — Unacknowledged Contents

Where a bill of lading bears a "shipper's load, count and seal" clause and expressly does not acknowledge the particulars of contents declared by the shipper, the carrier contracts only to transport the sealed containers and does not warrant the declared contents, which are packed and sealed by the merchant without the carrier being represented.

Contract of Carriage — Fundamental Breach — Discrepancy in Seals

A discrepancy between the seal and label numbers on containers and those shown on the bill of lading does not amount to a fundamental breach of the contract of carriage where the consignee accepts and clears the goods at the port of discharge without complaint and concedes that the bulk of the consignment conformed to the contract.

Appeals — Grounds of Appeal — Abandoning Memorandum Grounds Without Leave

A party may not abandon the grounds set out in its memorandum of appeal and argue a wholly new "broad ground" without leave of court, contrary to the Rules of the Supreme Court.

Legislation cited (2)

Rules of the Supreme Court r.98
Rules of the Supreme Court r.83

Cases cited (5)

Joy Tumushabe v Anglo African and Another (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1999)
Reuben Bagamuhunda v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 1987)
Management Training and Advisory Centre v Patrick Kakuru Ikanza (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1985)
Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
London and North Western Railway Company v Richard Hudson And Sons Ltd. [1920] C.A. 356

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.