Wakilii

Copy Line Ltd v Rapid Shipping & Freight (U) Ltd & Anor (Civil Suit No. 314 of 2007)

High Court · [2016] UGCOMMC 61 · 2016 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for breach of contract relating to freight and shipping services
Decision
Suit dismissed against the first Defendant. Judgment for the Plaintiff against the second Defendant with awards of special damages, general damages, interest, and costs.

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 held that the second defendant breached its contract to freight goods from Dubai to Busia via Mombasa when the goods were lost in transit in Kenya. The first defendant acted merely as an agent and was not liable. The court awarded special damages limited to the value of goods declared to customs (US$10,010) plus general damages of US$2,500, rejecting inflated claims for goods not declared to customs as contrary to public policy under customs law.

Outcome

Suit dismissed against the first Defendant. Judgment for the Plaintiff against the second Defendant with awards of special damages, general damages, interest, and costs.

Facts

The Plaintiff contracted the second Defendant in Dubai to ship 60 packages of goods to Uganda. The second Defendant advised the Plaintiff to pay freight charges to the first Defendant in Kampala. The Plaintiff paid US$2,160 to the first Defendant. The goods were shipped from Dubai to Mombasa, then loaded onto a truck for transport to Busia on the Uganda border. The truck and container went missing in Kenya in March 2007 while in the custody of Container Freight Ltd, a third party contracted by the second Defendant. The goods were never recovered. The Plaintiff claimed US$38,360 for lost goods plus freight charges, relying on purchase receipts from Dubai. The second Defendant argued it acted properly, that the goods were lost due to criminal acts by the transporter, and that the Plaintiff's claimed values were inflated and not properly declared to customs.

Issues

  1. Whether there was a contract between the Plaintiff and the first Defendant, and if so on what terms?
  2. Whether there was a contract between the Plaintiff and the second Defendant, and if so on what terms?
  3. Whether the Defendants breached the contract?
  4. What remedies are available to the Plaintiff?

Orders

  • Suit against the first Defendant dismissed with costs.
  • Judgment entered against the second Defendant.
  • Second Defendant liable for breach of contract to convey the Plaintiff's goods to Busia, Uganda.
  • Plaintiff awarded special damages of US$10,010 (US$7,850 for goods plus US$2,160 freight charges).
  • Plaintiff awarded general damages of US$2,500 for inconvenience.
  • Interest awarded at 10% per annum on special damages from April 2007 to filing of suit in February 2009.
  • Interest awarded at 10% per annum on special damages from date of filing suit to date of judgment.
  • Interest awarded at 10% per annum on aggregate sum from date of judgment till payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the Plaintiff as against the second Defendant.
  • Second Defendant to pay the costs of the first Defendant.

Rules and key headnotes

Bills of Lading — Unilateral Documents — Evidence of Contractual Terms
A bill of lading is not by itself the contract between the ship-owner and the shipper because it is unilaterally issued by the ship owner. The contract comes into existence before the bill of lading is issued. While the bill of lading may be excellent evidence of the terms of the contract, evidence of the oral contract made before the bill of lading was issued is admissible.
Agency — Disclosed Principal — Liability of Agent
As a general rule, where an agent contracts as an agent for a disclosed principal, the agent cannot be liable on the contract to the other contracting party and only the principal can be sued or can sue. There is no presumption of liability on the part of the agent.
Breach of Contract — Burden of Proof — Bailment for Reward
Where a plaintiff proves delivery of goods to a defendant for carriage to a destination and that the goods did not reach their destination, the plaintiff makes a prima facie case and the burden shifts to the defendant to justify why the goods did not reach their destination. The defendant must show what happened to the goods and that it occurred without negligence or default on the defendant's part or that of servants to whom the duty was delegated.
Bailment for Reward — Duty of Care — Liability for Sub-Contractors
Once a person has taken charge of goods as a bailee for reward, it is the bailee's duty to take reasonable care to keep them safe and the bailee cannot escape that duty by delegating it to a servant or sub-contractor. If goods are lost while in the bailee's possession through outsourced services, the bailee is liable unless able to show the loss occurred without any fault on the part of the bailee or those to whom the duty was entrusted.
Damages — Special Damages — Proof — Illegality and Public Policy
Claims may be unenforceable on the ground that to enforce them would be against public policy. Goods or their price which were not declared to customs authorities for purposes of payment of customs dues cannot be included in a claim for special damages for their loss. To award damages for undeclared goods would lend the court process to an illegality under customs law.
Damages — Restitutio in Integrum — Insurance
Where a plaintiff has taken out insurance, moneys received under the insurance policy are not to be taken into account in assessing damages. It would be unjust that money prudently spent on premiums and the benefit from insurance should enure to the benefit of the wrongdoer. Whether someone insured or not is not relevant to the defendant's liability.
Interest — Compensatory Nature — Commercial Rate
An award of interest on damages is compensatory and intended to reflect the cost to the plaintiff of being deprived of money which should have been available. In commercial cases, interest is intended to reflect the rate at which the plaintiff would have had to borrow money to supply the place of that which was withheld. Where a commercial rate is claimed and not shown to be unreasonable, the court may award interest at that commercial rate rather than the court rate.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (22)

  • S.S. Ardennes (Cargo Owners) v S.S. Ardennes (Owners) [1950] 2 All ER 517
  • Phones Ababa versus Swift Freight International HCCS number 1403 of 2000
  • Equinox Global Trading Company Limited versus Panalpina Uganda Limited HCCS 1298 of 1999
  • Rapid Shipping and Freight Uganda Ltd and another versus Copy line Ltd Miscellaneous Application Number 216 of 2012
  • Storms Bruks Aktie Bolag v John Peter Hutchinson (1905) AC 515
  • KCC v Nakaye (1972) EA 446
  • Charles Lwanga versus Centenary Rural Development Bank (2000) KALR 652
  • Rosetta Cooper v General Neville and Another (1961) EA 63
  • Dada Cycles vs. Sofitra SPRL H.C.C.S. No. 656 of 2000
  • Ronald Kasibante versus Shell Uganda Limited
  • Uganda Telecom Limited versus Tanzanite Corporation Civil Appeal Number 17 of 2004
  • Dairy Development Authority versus Ngarambe HCCA No 10 of 2011
  • Houghland v Low (Luxury Coaches) Ltd (1962) 2 All ER 159
  • Morris v C.W. Martin and Sons [1965] 2 All ER 725
  • Beresford v Royal Insurance Co Ltd [1938] 2 All ER 602
  • Geismar v Sun Alliance and London Insurance Ltd and another [1977] 3 All ER 570
  • Parry v Cleaver [1967] 2 All ER 1168
  • Parry v Cleaver [1969] 1 All ER 555
  • Dharamshi v Karsan [1974] 1 EA 41
  • Johnson and another v Agnew [1979] 1 All ER 883
  • Riches v Westminster Bank Ltd [1947] 1 All ER 469
  • Tate & Lyle Food and Distribution Ltd v Greater London Council and another [1981] 3 All ER 716

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Copy Line Ltd v Rapid Shipping & Freight (U) Ltd & Anor (Civil Suit No. 314 of 2007) [2016] UGCommC 61 (19 August 2016)
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.