Wakilii

Adam Osman TA Boli- Mog v Uganda Securiko Limited (Civil Appeal 2 of 1998)

Court of Appeal · [1998] UGCA 30 · 1998 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from a High Court judgment dismissing a suit for breach of contract
Decision
Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment upheld

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

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.

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 Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the contract document (Exhibit D1), signed by both parties, was clear and unambiguous and identified the premises to be guarded as a shop at Plot No. 288 William Street, not the store at Plot 12/14 Bombo Road where the theft occurred. There was therefore no need to admit extrinsic evidence under section 92 of the Evidence Act. The court further held that the monthly contract, which required payment in advance, had expired before the night of the theft and had not been renewed, so no contract existed at the relevant time. The respondent could not be liable for breach of a non-existent contract.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment upheld

Facts

On 5 March 1995, the appellant entered into a contract with the respondent under which, for consideration of shs. 172,000 payable monthly in advance, the respondent agreed to provide a night security guard. The order sheet (Exhibit D1), signed by representatives of both parties, described the premises under "situation" as a shop at Plot No. 288 William Street. On the night of 5 April 1995, a store at Plot 12/14 Bombo Road was broken into and merchandise stolen. An employee of the respondent and others were arrested and prosecuted for the burglary and theft. The appellant sued to recover the value of the stolen goods, general damages for breach of contract, interest and costs. The respondent contended it had contracted to guard the William Street shop, not the Bombo Road store, and that in any event the one-month contract had lapsed and had not been renewed by advance payment before the theft.

Issues

  1. Whether there was a contract between the appellant and the respondent to guard the store on Bombo Road.
  2. Whether the contract between the parties had expired at the time of the theft.
  3. Whether the appellant was entitled to the remedies sought.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Judgment of the trial court upheld.
  • Costs of the appeal and the court below awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Documentary Evidence — Parol Evidence Rule — Exclusion of Extrinsic Evidence Where Document is Clear
Where a written contract is clear and unambiguous, there is no need to admit extrinsic evidence under section 92 of the Evidence Act to explain or vary its terms.
Construction of Contracts — Identification of Subject Matter — Premises to be Guarded
The subject matter of a contract is to be determined from the clear terms of the signed document; a description of the premises in the contract document governs the scope of the obligation undertaken.
Duration and Renewal — Monthly Contract Requiring Advance Payment — Lapse
A monthly contract that requires payment in advance for each month expires at the end of the paid month, and no liability arises under it once it has lapsed and has not been renewed by the required advance payment.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (2)

  • Visram and Karsam v Bhatt [1955] E.A. 789
  • Choitram vs Lazar [1957] E.A. 157

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Adam Osman TA Boli- Mog v Uganda Securiko Limited (Civil Appeal 2 of 1998) [1998] UGCA 30 (26 October 1998)
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.