3WM Uganda Limited v Loadwell Freight Logistics Ltd & 2 Ors (Civil Suit No. 299 of 2015)

Observed later treatment

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

Holding

Held that where an interlocutory judgment is entered under Order 9 rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules, it settles all questions of liability. The first Defendant breached the service level agreement by failing to clear consignments after receiving payment. A plaintiff is entitled to final judgment for a liquidated demand even where there is also a claim for pecuniary damages. Judgment entered for the first Defendant only; suit against the second and third Defendants dismissed.

Outcome

Judgment entered in favour of the Plaintiff against the first Defendant. Suit against the second and third Defendants dismissed.

Facts

The Plaintiff, a motor vehicle import/export company, entered into a service level agreement dated 1 May 2014 with the first Defendant, a Kenyan freight logistics company, for clearing and forwarding services in Mombasa. The Plaintiff paid the first Defendant US$86,126 for clearing and forwarding consignments. The first Defendant acknowledged indebtedness in a letter dated 16 January 2014. Despite receiving payment, the Defendants failed to clear the consignments and misappropriated funds. The Defendants repaid US$40,140, leaving a balance of US$45,986 outstanding. In July 2013, the Defendants lost a Premio motor vehicle worth US$2,300 in transit. The Plaintiff was forced to send representatives to Mombasa to clear abandoned consignments and incurred expenses for air tickets (US$1,516) and accommodation (Kenya shillings 45,800). The Defendants failed to file a defence and interlocutory judgment was entered on 22 September 2015.

Issues

1. Whether the Defendants breached the Service Level Agreement.
2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the remedies sought.

Orders

• A declaration issues under Order 2 rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules that the first Defendant breached the service level agreement dated 1st May 2014 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
• The first Defendant shall refund to the Plaintiff a sum of US$63,036.
• The first Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff special damages in the amount of US$1,516 and Kenya shillings 45,800.
• The Plaintiff is awarded interest on the United States dollars in paragraphs 2 and 3 above at the rate of 10% per annum from November 2014 to the date of judgment.
• The suit against the second and third Defendants is dismissed with no order as to costs.
• The Plaintiff's suit against the first Defendant succeeds with costs.
• Interest is awarded at 6% per annum on the decreed amount from the date of judgment till payment in full.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (6)

• Civil Procedure Rules Order 9 rule 8
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 9 rule 6
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 9 rule 12
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 2 rule 9
• Contract Act 2010 s.61
• Civil Procedure Act s.27(2)

Cases cited (12)

• Haji Asumani Mutekanga v Equator Growers (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1995)
• Emmanuel Kyoyeta v Emmanuel Mutebi (High Court Civil Suit No. 781 of 2014)
• Allan Nyirikindi v Commissioner for Land Registration (Miscellaneous Cause No. 44 of 2014)
• Sylvan Kakugu Tumwesigye v Trans Sahara International General TRDG LLC (High Court Civil Suit No. 95 of 2005)
• Agard Didi v James Namakaso (High Court Civil Suit No. 1230 of 1988)
• Eladam Enterprises Ltd v S.G.S (U) Ltd & Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2002)
• Uganda Revenue Authority v Wanume David Kitamirike (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2010)
• Uganda Baati v Patrick Kalema (High Court Civil Suit No. 126 of 2010)
• Abbey Panel & Sheet Metal Co Ltd v Barson Products [1947] 2 All ER 809
• Johnson v Agnew [1979] 1 All ER 883
• Dharamshi v Karsan [1974] 1 EA 41
• Tate & Lyle Food and Distribution Ltd v Greater London Council [1981] 3 All ER 716

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Meera Investment Limited v DFCU Bank Limited and Another (Civil Suit 948 of 2017)

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.