Wakilii

COSCO Shipping LINES (Kenya) Limited v Synthomer Trading Limited & 3 Others (Civil Suit 107 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 1082 · 2024 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of stolen cargo and injunctive relief
Decision
Container ordered released to Plaintiff for re-export upon payment of storage charges. 1st Defendant liable for general damages, storage costs, and all party costs.

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 1st Defendant used a forged bill of lading to obtain cargo from the Plaintiff, constituting possession of stolen goods. The shipper confirmed retention of the original bill of lading and that no payment was received from the 1st Defendant. The Plaintiff, authorized by the shipper, was entitled to recover the cargo. Permanent injunction granted preventing release of container to the 1st Defendant. Container ordered released to Plaintiff for re-export upon payment of storage charges, recoverable from 1st Defendant.

Outcome

Container ordered released to Plaintiff for re-export upon payment of storage charges. 1st Defendant liable for general damages, storage costs, and all party costs.

Facts

On 19 September 2023, the 1st Defendant presented bill of lading No. OOLU8894674950 to the Plaintiff as consignee and obtained release of cargo in five containers. On 25 September 2023, the shipper Ming Yang Solar Co. Ltd informed the Plaintiff it still possessed the original bill of lading and had not released any bill to the 1st Defendant nor received payment. The Plaintiff discovered the presented bill was forged. The Plaintiff reported the matter to Kenyan and Ugandan police and recovered four containers in Kenya. The fifth container (No. OOCU8383761) had been transported to Uganda and warehoused at Liberty ICD Limited in Namanve, Mukono District. The 1st Defendant never appeared to defend the suit despite effective service.

Issues

  1. Whether the 1st Defendant's bill of lading is a forgery
  2. Whether the 1st Defendant is in possession of stolen cargo
  3. What remedies are available to the parties

Orders

  • The 1st Defendant is declared to be in possession of stolen cargo vide container No. OOCU8383761, having received it from the Plaintiff using a forged bill of lading.
  • Permanent injunction issued against the 2nd and 3rd Defendants restraining them, their employees or agents from releasing the suit container No. OOCU8383761 to the 1st and 4th Defendants.
  • General damages in the sum of UGX 80,000,000 awarded to the Plaintiff against the 1st Defendant.
  • Interest of 15% per annum on general damages from the date of this judgment till payment in full awarded to the Plaintiff, payable by the 1st Defendant.
  • The 3rd Defendant ordered to release the suit container vide No. OOCU8383761 to the Plaintiff upon payment of full storage costs calculated from 11 October 2023 till the date of re-export, payable by the Plaintiff subject to recovery from the 1st Defendant.
  • No order issued for payment of taxes to the 2nd Defendant in respect of the goods in the suit container since it is for re-export and falls under EX8.
  • Costs of the suit and of the counterclaim awarded to the Plaintiff, the 2nd and 3rd Defendants payable by the 1st Defendant.

Rules and key headnotes

Bills of Lading — Document of Title — Legal Effect
A bill of lading is a document of title that acknowledges shipment of goods, acts as a receipt, summarizes the terms of the contract of carriage, and serves as proof of ownership. The general rule is that the owner of goods is the person named in the bill of lading as consignee and who holds the original bill of lading.
Forgery — Burden of Proof — Authenticity of Documents
A bill of lading being a legally binding document works as undisputed proof of shipment. Once its authenticity is disputed, the party believing in its accuracy or authenticity must prove it. Any bill of lading presented without the knowledge, authorization or consent of the owner of the goods named therein is forged, and any person in possession of goods named in a forged bill of lading is liable for being in possession of stolen goods.
Fraud — Pleading and Proof — Judicial Duty
Fraud is a serious matter requiring specific pleading, particularization, and strict proof. However, once fraud is brought to the attention of court, the court must deal with it. Fraud is such a grotesque monster that courts should hound it wherever it rears its head and wherever it seeks to take cover behind any legislation.
Cause of Action — Test for Disclosure
A cause of action is disclosed when the plaint shows that the plaintiff enjoyed a right, that the right has been violated, and that the defendant is liable. If any of those essentials is missing, no cause of action has been shown and no amendment is permissible. In determining whether a plaint discloses a cause of action, the court must look only at the plaint and its annexures and assume that the facts alleged are true.
Illegality — Duty of Court — Power to Raise Suo Motu
A plea of illegality can be raised at any stage of proceedings without need to amend pleadings, as long as the adversary is accorded the opportunity to be heard. A court before which any issue of illegality is raised must treat it as a matter of utmost gravity and deal with it, notwithstanding any issue of pleadings or admissions by the parties. A court of law cannot sanction that which is illegal.
Damages — General Damages — Assessment and Award
General damages are at large and assessed intuitively by the court taking all relevant circumstances into account. An award of general damages is compensatory and intended to put the innocent party as far as money can do so in the same position as if the contract had been performed or the wrong had not occurred. The award of general damages is at the discretion of court in respect of what the law presumes to be the natural and probable consequence of the defendant's act or omission.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (24)

  • Ismail Serugo v Kampala City Council & Anor (Supreme Court Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 1998)
  • Read v. Brown (1888) 22 QBD 128 at page 131
  • Auto Garage v. Motokov (No.3) [1971] E.A 514 at page 519
  • Cottar v. Attorney General of Kenya (1938) 5 E.A.C.A. 18
  • Kapeka Coffee Works Ltd v NPART (CACA No. 3 of 2000)
  • Attorney General v. Oluoch (1972) EA.392
  • Jeroj Shariff & Co v. Chotai Family Stores (1960) EA 374
  • Miller v. Minister of Pensions [1947]2 All ER 372
  • Rahima Nagitta & 2 Others v Richard Bukenya & 3 Others (HCCS No. 389 of 2010)
  • Equinox Global Trading v Panaphina (HCCS No. 570 of 1999)
  • Fred Kamanda v Uganda Commercial Bank (SCCA No. 17 of 1995)
  • P & O Nedloyd Uganda Ltd v Tesco International Ltd (CACA No. 86 of 2004)
  • Fam International & Anor v Mohamed Hamid el-Fatih (SCCA No. 16 of 1993)
  • Frederick J.K. Zaabwe v Barclays Bank Ltd & 5 Others (SCCA No. 4 of 2006)
  • Sudhir Ruparelia & Another v Crane Bank in Receivership & Another (M.A No. 39 of 2023)
  • Johnson and another v. Agnew [1979] 1 All ER 883
  • James Fredrick Nsubuga v Attorney General (H.C. Civil Suit No. 13 of 1993)
  • Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981) [1982] UGSC 2
  • National Social Security Fund & W.H. Sentongo v Alcon International Ltd (SCCA No. 15 of 2009)
  • Ham Enterprises Ltd & Anor v Diamond Trust Bank (U) Ltd & Anor (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2021)
  • Masaka Municipal Council v. Semogerere [1998-2000] HCB 23
  • Musoke David v. Departed Asians Property Custodian Board [1990-1994] E.A. 219
  • Riches v. Westminster Bank Ltd [1947] 1 All ER 469 HL
  • Uganda Development Bank v. Muganga Constructions [1981] HCB 35

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

COSCO Shipping LINES (Kenya) Limited v Synthomer Trading Limited & 3 Others (Civil Suit 107 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 1082 (4 December 2024)
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.