Bmi Group Management Uk Limited and Another v Ag Processing Incer Group Limited (Civil Suit 441 of 2019)
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
Held that the contract was void for mistake of fact as to the identity of the contracting party and for being procured through fraud. The defendant impersonated an American company to induce the plaintiffs to ship goods to Uganda. The court cancelled the bills of lading, restored ownership and possession of the goods to the plaintiffs, and granted them liberty to re-export the goods. Costs awarded to the plaintiffs.
Outcome
Contract declared void; goods and bills of lading returned to plaintiffs; plaintiffs granted liberty to re-export
Facts
The plaintiffs, UK and French companies, received an email purportedly from Darrin Freeman of AG Processing Inc., a US company, seeking to do business. After correspondence, the plaintiffs loaded and shipped ten containers of Decra roof tiles to Uganda based on the defendant's instructions, believing they were dealing with the American company. The defendant provided documents and the goods were dispatched with bills of lading. Upon arrival in Uganda in July 2019, the plaintiffs sent an invoice for payment but the defendant ceased communication. It transpired that the American company AG Processing Inc. had never made the order and had no connection with the defendant, AG Processing Incer Group Limited, a Ugandan company. The defendant had impersonated the American company and its officials. The goods remained held at Bollore Bonded Warehouse. The defendant filed a defense which was subsequently struck out for failing to disclose a reasonable answer, and judgment was entered for the plaintiffs after formal proof.
Issues
- Whether there was a valid contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant.
- What remedies are available to the parties.
Orders
- The contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant is declared void.
- Bills of Lading Nos. LHV 2013479A and LHV 2013479B are cancelled and ownership of the goods the subject of the said bills of lading reverts to the plaintiffs.
- Possession and ownership of the Decra roof tiles in the ten specified containers reverts to the plaintiffs.
- The plaintiffs are at liberty to re-export the Decra roof tiles or deal with the goods in any way legally available to them.
- The defendant shall pay the costs of the suit.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (5)
- Contracts Act 2010 s.10(1)
- Contracts Act 2010 s.10(2)
- Contracts Act 2010 s.17
- Civil Procedure Act s.27(2)
- Civil Procedure Rules O.6 r.19
Cases cited (3)
- Greenboat Entertainment Ltd v City Council of Kampala (Civil Suit No. 0580 of 2003)
- Cundy vs. Lindsay (1873) 3 App.Cas 459
- Groflin East Africa Fund LLC v Investec Uganda Ltd and 2 Others (Civil Suit No. 374 of 2011)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.