Wakilii

Munobe v The Commissioner Customs, URA (Civil Appeal 12 of 2022)

Supreme Court · [2023] UGSC 63 · 2023 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second appeal from the Court of Appeal's dismissal of an appeal against the High Court's dismissal of a civil suit for negligence.
Decision
Appeal dismissed; the concurrent findings of the High Court and Court of Appeal that the respondent was not liable were 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

On a second appeal, the Supreme Court held that imported goods under customs control stored at a licensed internal container depot or warehouse are in the care of the warehouse/ICD keeper, not the Commissioner. Sections 16 and 17 of the East African Community Customs Management Act create no presumption that the Commissioner is responsible for such goods; liability arises only where a wilful or negligent act of the Commissioner or an officer is pleaded and proved. As the vehicles were extensively damaged and vandalised before they entered the respondent's custody on 29 September 2010, no duty of care was breached and the concurrent findings of the lower courts could not be disturbed. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Facts

The appellant imported six motor vehicles which were damaged in an accident en route from Mombasa to Kampala. On arrival in 2008 the vehicles were stored at Kenfreight (U) Ltd, a licensed internal container depot, where an inspection on the day the container was first opened recorded extensive damage and many missing parts. A dispute over the respondent's depreciation-based tax valuation led to an earlier suit settled by consent in 2010, under which the respondent paid general damages and demurrage and agreed to reassess the vehicles. The vehicles were transferred to the respondent's Nakawa customs warehouse on 29 September 2010 and were later released. The appellant then sued in the High Court alleging the vehicles had been vandalised while in the respondent's custody and that the respondent was negligent. Both the High Court and Court of Appeal found that the damage and missing parts occurred while the vehicles were with Kenfreight, before they entered the respondent's custody, and dismissed the claim.

Issues

  1. Whether the vandalism of the appellant's six motor vehicles, if any, could on the evidence be attributed directly to the respondent.
  2. Whether the respondent was in custody and control of the vehicles while they were stored at a licensed internal container depot.
  3. Whether, under sections 16 and 17 of the East African Community Customs Management Act, the respondent owed the appellant a duty of care in respect of imported goods under customs control.
  4. Whether the Court of Appeal failed to properly evaluate the evidence on record as a whole.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent.
  • Judgments of the Court of Appeal and the High Court upheld.

Key headnotes

Negligence — Duty of Care — Goods under Customs Control — No Presumption of Commissioner's Liability
Placing imported goods under customs control creates no presumption of law that the Commissioner is responsible for their care and security; under section 17 of the East African Community Customs Management Act, liability arises only where a wilful or negligent act or omission of the Commissioner or an officer is pleaded and proved.
East African Community Customs Management Act ss.16 & 17 — Liability for Goods Stored at Licensed Warehouse or ICD
Goods entered for storage subject to customs control are in the physical care of the licensed warehouse keeper or internal container depot owner, who is liable to the importer for loss or damage occurring in his care; the Commissioner's right to examine such goods does not transfer custody, control, or responsibility for their security to the Commissioner.
Second Appeal — Concurrent Findings of Fact — Limited Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
On a second appeal the Supreme Court will not disturb concurrent findings of fact of the High Court and Court of Appeal save in exceptional circumstances; its jurisdiction is limited to determining whether the first appellate court subjected the evidence to a fresh and exhaustive scrutiny and whether there was credible evidence to support the findings.
Public Authority — Negligence — Statutory Power and Private Law Duty of Care
Whether a public authority owes a private law duty of care for the exercise of a statutory power depends on the policy of the conferring statute; where the policy of the Act is not to create a statutory liability to pay compensation, that same policy ordinarily excludes a common law duty of care.
Special Damages — Requirement to Plead and Prove
Special damages, including loss of specific vehicle parts, must be specifically pleaded and proved; a claimant who fails to plead particulars of the alleged missing parts cannot recover for them.

Legislation cited (14)

  • East African Community Customs Management Act 2004 s.16
  • East African Community Customs Management Act 2004 s.16(1)(a)
  • East African Community Customs Management Act 2004 s.16(2)
  • East African Community Customs Management Act 2004 s.16(4)
  • East African Community Customs Management Act 2004 s.17
  • East African Community Customs Management Act 2004 s.14
  • East African Community Customs Management Act 2004 s.47
  • East African Community Customs Management Act 2004 s.59
  • East African Community Customs Management Act 2004 s.62
  • East African Community Customs Management Act 2004 s.67
  • Evidence Act s.101
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions rule 30(1)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions rule 30(1)(a)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions rule 29(1)

Cases cited (16)

  • Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) AC 562
  • Stovin v Wise (1996) 3 All ER 801
  • Souza Manyindo v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 70 of 2003)
  • Francis Sembuya v Allports Services (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2001)
  • Uganda Breweries Ltd v Uganda Railways Corporation (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2001)
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Peters v Sunday Post Ltd (1958) EA 424
  • Watt v Thomas [1947] 1 All ER 582
  • Selle and Another vs Associated Motor Board Co. Ltd
  • Pandya vs Republic
  • Charles B. L. Bitwire vs Uganda
  • Coghlan v Cumberland (1898) 1 Ch 704
  • Abdul Hamid Saif vs Alimohamed Slidem (1955) 22, EACA 270
  • Trevor Price & Anor v Raymond Kelsall (1957) EA 752
  • R. Mohamed Ali Hasham v R (1941) 8 EACA 93
  • R v Hassan bin Said (1942) 9 EACA 62
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.