Wakilii

Boazman and Another v Hon. Attorney General of Uganda (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1941)

East African Court of Appeal · [1941] EACA 3 · 1941 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from decision of H.M. High Court of Uganda dismissing suit for damages for loss of goods in transit
Decision
Appeal dismissed with costs to 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

A private carrier may validly contract out of liability for negligence of its servants under the Indian Contract Act. Section 151 prescribes the normal standard of care for bailees, but section 152 permits that standard to be increased or reduced by special contract. An exemption clause relieving a carrier from liability for loss caused by default of its servants is not contrary to public policy, provided it is expressed in clear, express and unambiguous language. The word 'default' includes negligence.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed with costs to respondent

Facts

On 5 September 1938, appellants delivered a package containing raw gold weighing approximately 8.5 lb to the transport section of the Public Works Department of the Government of Uganda at Kabale for carriage to the National Bank of India, Kampala. The transport section carried goods for reward but was not a common carrier. The appellants' agent signed a declaration containing a condition that the department would pay no compensation or damages for loss, damage, delay, detention or misdelivery whether caused by the act or default of the department or its servants or by accident or otherwise. The package was lost by the act or default of one or more servants of the transport section. Appellants sued for damages. The High Court dismissed the suit, holding that the Government was protected by the exemption clause. Appellants appealed.

Issues

  1. Whether a private carrier can validly contract out of liability for loss of goods caused by negligence of its servants under sections 151 and 152 of the Indian Contract Act.
  2. Whether an exemption clause relieving a carrier from all liability for loss, damage, delay, detention or misdelivery is contrary to public policy.
  3. Whether the exemption clause in the contract was expressed in sufficiently clear and unambiguous language to exclude liability for negligence.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Bailment — Special Contract — Exemption from Liability for Negligence
Section 151 of the Indian Contract Act does not prescribe an absolute minimum of care required of a bailee which cannot be reduced by special contract. The effect of sections 151 and 152 read together is that while section 151 provides the normal standard of care to be observed, section 152 provides that that standard may be increased or reduced by special contract.
Bailment — Private Carriers — Exemption Clauses — Clarity of Language
A bailee can contract out of liability for the negligence of himself or his servants notwithstanding the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, subject to the proviso that the condition must be expressed in clear, express and unambiguous language.
Indian Contract Act — Application to Private Carriers
The Indian Contract Act applies to private carriers. The Act does not apply to common carriers because their liabilities are provided for in the Indian Carriers Act 1865, but there is no reason to exclude private carriers from the scope of the Contract Act.
Exemption Clauses — Meaning of 'Default'
The word 'default' in an exemption clause embraces every failure by the defendant to perform his contract unless prevented by superior force over which he had no control. It includes negligence.
Exemption Clauses — Public Policy
A condition relieving a private carrier from all responsibility for loss of goods is not contrary to public policy. The matters that fall within the scope of the doctrine of public policy have been long since defined, and courts may not invent a new head of public policy.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Indian Contract Act s.1
  • Indian Contract Act s.151
  • Indian Contract Act s.152
  • Indian Carriers Act 1865

Cases cited (13)

  • Irrawaddy Flotilla Co. v. Bugwandas (18 Calc. 620)
  • Moothora Kant Shaw v. The Indian General Steam Navigation Co. (10 Calc. 166)
  • British Trading Co. v. Governor of Uganda (2 Uganda Law Reports 1)
  • Sheik Mahamed Ravuther v. British Indian Steam Navigation Co. (32 Mad. 95)
  • B.I.S.N. Co. v. Alibhai Mohamed (A.I.R. 1920 Lower Burma 139)
  • Fur Chong v. Maung Po Cho (A.I.R. 1929 Rangoon 145)
  • Bombay Steam Navigation Co. v. Vasudey (52 Bombay 37)
  • Gaffarini v. Walker (9 In Rep. C.L. 437)
  • Turner v. Civil Service Supply Ass. (1926) 1 K.B. 50
  • Fagan v. Green & Edwards (1926) 1 K.B. 102
  • Richardson v. Mellish (130 E.R. 2 Bing. 252)
  • re Mirams (1891) 1 Q.B. 594
  • Janson v. Driefontein Consolidated Mines (1902) A.C. 484

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Boazman and Another v Hon. Attorney General of Uganda (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1941) [1941] EACA 3 (1 January 1941)
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.