Wakilii

Chief Distillers Uganda Limited v DAMCO Logistics Uganda Limited (Civil Suit No. 4 of 2019)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 111 · 2023 Judgment for Defendant AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for breach of contract and negligence arising from alleged damage to goods during freight forwarding
Decision
Plaintiff's suit dismissed with costs to the defendant

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 High Court dismissed the plaintiff's claim for damages arising from goods damaged in transit, holding that the defendant freight forwarder's contractual obligations extended only to delivery from Mombasa to Kampala ICD and expressly excluded local delivery to the plaintiff's premises. The court found that the plaintiff had appointed its own clearing agent for onward transportation, and that any variation of the original contract must satisfy the requirements of offer, acceptance, and consideration, which email correspondence alone could not establish.

Outcome

Plaintiff's suit dismissed with costs to the defendant

Facts

By agreement dated 4 June 2018, the plaintiff appointed the defendant as freight forwarder to transport goods from Mombasa to Kampala. The goods were packed in six containers requiring special care. The plaintiff obtained Uganda Revenue Authority permission for direct delivery to its premises at Watuba and gave this letter to the defendant. One container was damaged when a truck overturned en route from Multiple ICD Kampala to the plaintiff's premises at Watuba. The plaintiff claimed USD 210,000 for the destroyed bottling line equipment and UGX 18,050,000 in crane hire charges. The defendant contended that under Schedule 1 of the contract, its services covered freight forwarding from Mombasa to Kampala only and expressly excluded local delivery. The defendant asserted that the plaintiff appointed Boret International (U) Limited as clearing agent to transport goods from the ICD to Watuba, and that the accident occurred while the goods were in the hands of this agent, outside the defendant's scope of services.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff's suit is bad in law.
  2. Whether the defendant was negligent in the provision of services and/or breached the contract for provision of services.
  3. What remedies, if any, are available.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's suit dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the defendant.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Scope of Contractual Obligations — Express Terms
Where parties enter into a written contract that expressly defines the scope of services and explicitly excludes certain services, a party cannot claim breach for failure to perform the excluded services absent a valid variation of the contract.
Contract Law — Variation of Contract — Requirements for Valid Variation
A variation of an existing contract must itself possess the characteristics of a valid contract, including offer, acceptance, and consideration. Email correspondence from one party to another, without evidence of acceptance and consideration, does not constitute a binding variation of the original contract.
Contract Law — Interpretation of Contracts — Sanctity of Contract
Courts must treat as sacrosanct the terms of an agreement freely entered into by parties. Courts lack the power to rewrite contracts for parties, and parties cannot unilaterally alter contractual terms. The principle of pacta sunt servanda requires that non-fraudulent agreements be observed.
Contract Law — Exclusion Clauses — Exclusion of Liability for Acts of Third Parties
Where a contract contains a clause excluding the service provider's liability for loss arising from the act or omission of any person acting on behalf of the customer, and the customer appoints a third-party agent to perform services outside the scope of the original contract, the service provider is not liable for damage occurring while goods are in the hands of that agent.
Evidence — Cross-Examination — Failure to Challenge Evidence
Where a party fails to challenge material evidence during cross-examination, it follows that the party believed the testimony could not be disputed. Omission to challenge evidence-in-chief on a material point leads to the inference that the evidence is accepted, subject to it being assailed as inherently incredible.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (6)

  • Habre International Co Ltd v Kassam and others [1999] 1 EA 125
  • Kabenge v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 1977)
  • Sowoabiri and another v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1990)
  • Makubuya Enock v Songdoh Films (U) Ltd & Another (High Court Civil Suit No. 349 of 2017)
  • Golden Const. Co Ltd v Stateco (Nig) Ltd (2014) 8 NWLR (pt 1408) p. 171
  • National Bank of Kenya v Pipe Plastic Sankolit (K) Ltd & Anor [2001] EA

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Chief Distillers Uganda Limited v DAMCO Logistics Uganda Limited (Civil Suit No. 4 of 2019) [2023] UGHCCD 111 (24 April 2023)
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.