Wakilii

Cyber Auto Garage v Askar Security Services Ltd (Civil Suit No. 333 of 2011)

High Court · [2015] UGCOMMC 184 · 2015 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for compensation arising from breach of security services contract
Decision
Judgment for plaintiff with general damages and costs, but claim for special damages dismissed for failure of proof

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 held that a bailee has standing under s.117 Contracts Act 2010 to sue for loss of bailed goods. The court found the defendant security company breached its contract when goods were stolen from the plaintiff's premises, rejecting the defendant's reliance on an exclusion clause because the defendant failed to prove that employees of the plaintiff connived in the theft. However, the plaintiff failed to prove the quantum of special damages claimed. The court awarded general damages of UGX 25,000,000 for inconvenience suffered.

Outcome

Judgment for plaintiff with general damages and costs, but claim for special damages dismissed for failure of proof

Facts

The plaintiff entered into a security services contract with the defendant on 10 February 2011 to guard its premises in Mengo. On 18 April 2011, the defendant deployed guard Amudi Moses to the premises. That night, 450 bales of second-hand shoes stored at the premises were stolen. The plaintiff discovered the guard had abandoned his post and left his gun at the scene. The shoes belonged to Genuine Imports and Exports Ltd, a separate company whose goods were kept at the plaintiff's premises. Police investigations recovered 291 bags of shoes. Several individuals were arrested with stolen shoes, including one Manisulu Setaala, whom the defendant claimed was the plaintiff's employee. The defendant relied on an exclusion clause stating it would not be liable for theft resulting from connivance between client staff and its guards.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff is legally entitled to bring a suit on behalf of M/S Genuine Imports and Exports Ltd on the stolen goods.
  2. Whether the defendant was in breach of the contract for guarding services.
  3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought.

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the plaintiff.
  • General damages of UGX 25,000,000 awarded to the plaintiff for inconvenience suffered.
  • Interest on general damages at 12% per annum from date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Bailment — Bailee's Right to Sue — Contracts Act s.117
A bailee, being a person who receives personal property from another and has possession but not title, is entitled under s.117(2) of the Contracts Act 2010 to bring suit for loss or damage to bailed goods as if it were the owner, even where the goods belong to a third party.
Exclusion Clauses — Burden of Proof — Connivance by Client Staff
Where a party seeks to rely on an exclusion clause in a contract that limits liability for loss arising from connivance between the client's staff and the service provider's employees, the burden lies on the party invoking the clause to prove that the alleged connivance involved persons who were in fact staff, relatives, or persons influential to the client.
Burden of Proof — Specific Facts Under Contract
Under s.103 of the Evidence Act, the burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on the person who wishes the court to believe in its existence. A party asserting that individuals are employees of another party must adduce sufficient evidence to discharge this burden and cannot rely on assertions alone.
Breach of Contract — Security Services — Liability for Acts of Employees
A security services company contracted to guard premises and property is in breach of contract where goods are stolen from the premises during the period when its guards are on duty, in the absence of proof that the loss falls within a validly invoked exclusion clause.
Special Damages — Pleading and Proof
Special damages must be specially pleaded and proved exactly on the balance of probabilities. Where a plaintiff claims a specific sum as the value of stolen goods but fails to adduce evidence showing how that value was calculated and does not account for goods subsequently recovered, the claim for special damages fails for want of proof.
General Damages — Breach of Contract — Inconvenience
General damages may be awarded for inconvenience and discomfort caused by breach of contract. The assessment of quantum is a matter for the discretion of the court, to be exercised judicially, taking into account the nature and duration of the inconvenience suffered.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (14)

  • Auto Garage & Ors v Motokov (No.3) [1971] EA 514
  • Hasmani v National Bank of India Ltd (1937) 4 EACA 55
  • Express Transport Co Ltd v BAT Tanzania Ltd [1968] EA 443
  • Makula International Ltd v Cardinal Nsubuga & Anor [1982] HCB 11
  • Pusha d/o RM Patel v The Fleet Transport Company Ltd [1960] EA 1025
  • Attorney General v Blake [2000] 4 All ER 385
  • Obongo v Kisumu Municipal Council [1971] EA 91
  • Fredrick Zaabwe v Orient Bank & 5 Ors (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2005)
  • Mutekanga v Equator Grower (U) Ltd [1995-1998] EA 205
  • Uganda Telecom Ltd v Tanzanite Corporation (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2004)
  • UCB v Kigozi [2002] EA 305
  • Musisi Edward v Babihuga Hilda [2007] HCB 83
  • Robbidac Pants (U) Ltd v KB Construction Ltd [1976] HCB 49
  • Southern Engineering Company Ltd v Mulia [1986-1989] EA 541

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Cyber Auto Garage v Askar Security Services Ltd (Civil Suit No. 333 of 2011) [2015] UGCommC 184 (23 October 2015)
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.