Wakilii

David Kulabako v Sadolin Paints (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 65 of 2004)

Court of Appeal · [2005] UGCA 13 · 2005 Appeal Dismissed; Cross-Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal and cross-appeal from a High Court (Commercial Division) judgment for wrongful seizure, detinue and conversion of goods
Decision
Main appeal dismissed; cross-appeal partly allowed with general damages enhanced to Shs 40 million and special damages of Shs 65 million retained

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 Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the finding that the respondent's hides and skins were seized and sold by the bank's receivers who, being bank employees, acted as agents of the first appellant rather than of the company under receivership. The location of the goods among the bailee's premises was immaterial; what mattered was control by the bailee. On the cross-appeal, the court held special damages must be specifically pleaded and proved; the respondent's figure was unproven, so the Shs 65 million special damages award was left intact. However, the general damages of Shs 10 million were an erroneous estimate and were enhanced to Shs 40 million.

Outcome

Main appeal dismissed; cross-appeal partly allowed with general damages enhanced to Shs 40 million and special damages of Shs 65 million retained

Facts

The respondent, a dealer in hides and skins, entered a tanning contract with Al Ahamed Hides and Skins Limited, a Kampala company, delivering its goods to the company for tanning. During the contract, the first appellant bank placed Al Ahamed under receivership and sold all goods found in the company's warehouses and tannery, including goods belonging to the respondent. The second appellant was the first-appointed receiver/manager and an employee of the bank in charge of special assets; he handed over to a successor receiver, Mr. Mawanda, who sold the goods. The respondent, through correspondence including a detailed letter from its lawyers particularising 72,000 pieces of hides and skins, notified the bank that Al Ahamed held its goods merely as a bailee, and demanded their release. The bank declined to investigate the claim, contending the respondent had not shown title, and proceeded with the sale. The respondent sued for wrongful seizure, detinue and conversion, claiming special damages of US$103,916.20 plus general damages and interest.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial Judge properly evaluated the evidence in concluding that the seized goods belonged to the respondent.
  2. Whether the location of the goods in a particular warehouse was material to a claim in conversion and detinue against a bailor's creditor.
  3. Whether the first appellant was liable for the acts of the receiver/manager in seizing and selling the goods.
  4. Whether the second appellant, as receiver, was an agent of the first appellant or of the company under receivership.
  5. Whether the awards of special and general damages should be enhanced on cross-appeal.

Orders

  • Main appeal dismissed in toto.
  • Cross-appeal partly allowed.
  • Award of Shs 65 million special damages left intact.
  • General damages enhanced from Shs 10 million to Shs 40 million.
  • Costs of the suit here and below awarded to the respondent.
  • By subsequent slip-rule order dated 18 October 2005, the order for interest at 20% per annum from date of judgment until payment in full was deleted.

Rules and key headnotes

Conversion and Detinue — Bailment — Irrelevance of Location of Goods Under Bailee's Control
Where goods are held by a bailee under a bailment or tanning contract, the specific premises in which the bailee stores the goods is immaterial to a claim in conversion; what matters is that the goods were under the bailee's possession and control when seized.
Conversion and Detinue — Elements — Seizure, Demand and Refusal
To sustain a suit in conversion and detinue there must be a seizure of or dealing with another person's goods constituting an unjustifiable denial of the owner's rights, ordinarily followed by a demand by the owner and a refusal by the defendant to hand over the goods.
Receivership — Agency — Receiver Who Is an Employee of the Appointing Creditor
Although a receiver is at law ordinarily an agent of the company placed under receivership, a receiver who is simultaneously an employee of the appointing creditor and charged with recovering the creditor's debt may be treated as the agent of that creditor, rendering the creditor liable for the receiver's acts.
Special Damages — Requirement of Specific Pleading and Proof
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved; an arbitrary figure of value asserted by a witness without supporting evidence, or a price realised at a forced auction sale, does not establish the actual value of goods for the purpose of special damages.
Appellate Interference with Assessment of Damages
An appellate court will interfere with a trial judge's assessment of damages only where the judge acted on a wrong principle of law or where the amount awarded is so high or so low as to constitute an entirely erroneous estimate of the damage.

Cases cited (4)

  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Wanume David Kitamirike (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 26 of 1995)
  • Kananura v Connie Kabanda (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 31 of 1992)
  • Flint v Lovell [1935] 1 KB 354
  • Davies v Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd [1942] AC 601

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

David Kulabako v Sadolin Paints (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 65 of 2004) [2005] UGCA 13 (15 July 2005)
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.