Wakilii

Adani Osman t a Boli-Mog v Uganda Securiko Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1998)

Court of Appeal · [1998] UGCA 73 · 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 dismissing the suit upheld with costs to the respondent

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 signed order sheet (Exhibit D1) was clear and unambiguous: the premises to be guarded was a shop at Plot No. 288 William Street, not a store at Plot 12/14 Bombo Road, so no extrinsic evidence under section 92 of the Evidence Act was necessary. The Court further held that the contract was a monthly arrangement payable in advance and, having begun on 5 March 1995, it expired before the theft occurred on the night of 5 April 1995. As no advance payment had been made for a renewed month, no contract existed at the time of the burglary, and the respondent could not be liable.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment dismissing the suit upheld with costs to the respondent

Facts

On 5 March 1995 the appellant entered into a contract with the respondent under which, for consideration of shs. 172,000/= per month payable in advance, the respondent agreed to provide a night security guard. The signed order sheet (Exhibit D1) described the premises under "situation: shop, Plot No. 288, William Street". The appellant claimed the agreement covered a store at Plot 12/14 Bombo Road. On the night of 5/7 April 1995 that store was broken into and merchandise stolen; an employee of the respondent and others were arrested and prosecuted for the burglary. The appellant sued to recover the value of stolen goods, general damages for breach of contract, interest and costs. The respondent contended it had contracted to guard a shop at Plot 288 William Street, not the Bombo Road store, and that the monthly contract had lapsed before the theft as no advance payment had been made for any renewal.

Issues

  1. Whether there was a contract between the parties for the guarding of the appellant's store on Bombo Road.
  2. Whether the contract between the parties had expired at the time of the theft.
  3. Whether extrinsic evidence under section 92 of the Evidence Act could be admitted to interpret the signed contract document.
  4. Whether the appellant was entitled to the remedies sought.

Orders

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

Rules and key headnotes

Documentary Evidence — Interpretation of Written Contracts — Extrinsic Evidence under Evidence Act s.92
Where a written contract document is clear and unambiguous on its face, there is no need to admit extrinsic evidence under section 92 of the Evidence Act to explain or vary its terms.
Contract Law — Construction of Terms — Identification of Subject Matter
The subject matter of a contract is determined by the clear words of the signed document, and a party cannot, absent credible evidence, recharacterise an unambiguous description of the place to be guarded as a mere billing address.
Contract Law — Duration and Expiry — Monthly Contracts Payable in Advance
A monthly contract payable in advance expires at the end of the paid month and is not renewed unless advance payment for the subsequent month is made; no liability arises under a non-existent contract.

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.

Adani Osman t a Boli-Mog v Uganda Securiko Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1998) [1998] UGCA 73 (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.