Departed Asians Property Custodian Board v Bukenya (Civil Appeal 26 of 1992)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. Although the trial court found the Board had acted wrongfully, it had awarded the value of the goods and lost income that the plaint did not support. The plaint sought only return of the goods (a claim in detinue) and general damages for trespass to goods, loss of licence and loss of business, none of which was properly pleaded or particularised. Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved, and a court cannot grant remedies unsupported by the pleadings, even in ex-parte proceedings. The court should have required amendment of the plaint, served on the defendant, rather than award unpleaded remedies. The trial judgment was set aside.

Outcome

Appeal allowed; trial court judgment set aside and a judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claim with costs substituted.

Facts

The respondent was the lawful occupant of a shop on William Street, Kampala, allocated to him although the premises fell under the appellant Board's jurisdiction. In 1987 the Board terminated his occupation and re-allocated the shop to another person, and his personal property was locked inside the shop. The Board directed an agent to open the premises so the respondent could remove his property, but the agent failed to do so and the respondent could not recover his goods. He sued in 1988 seeking recovery of his property and general damages for trespass to property, loss of the benefit of his licence, and loss of business. The Board did not appear to defend, and judgment was entered ex-parte awarding the respondent Shs 14,602,210 as the value of the property and Shs 960,000 for lost income, plus interest and costs. The Board appealed, contending that the plaint did not support the remedies granted.

Issues

1. Whether the trial court could award the value of the goods where the plaint sought only the return of the goods in detinue and not their value.
2. Whether the awards of special damages (value of property and lost income) and general damages for loss of business were supported by the pleadings.
3. What is the duty of the court when conducting ex-parte proceedings in which the pleadings do not support the remedies prayed for.

Orders

• Appeal allowed.
• Judgment of the trial court set aside.
• Judgment dismissing the claim with costs substituted therefor.
• Costs of the appeal awarded to the appellant.
• Each party to bear its own costs of the lower court / ex-parte proceedings.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (1)

• Currency Reform Statute 1987

Cases cited (1)

• General and Finance Facilities Ltd v Cooks Cars (Romford) Ltd [1963] 1 WLR 644

Cases citing this judgment (8)

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.

• Megha Industries Uganda Limited v Brood Uganda Limited (Civil Suit 1026 of 2020)
• Okot-Bwangamoi v Amitayo OKeny & 5 Others (Civil Suit No. 64 of 2011)
• Okot v Abodo (CIVIL APPEAL No. 046 OF 2018)
• Othonde v Opio (Civil Appeal No. 0025 of 2014)
• Uganda Breweries Limited v Uganda Railways Corporation (Civil Appeal 6 of 2001)
• Ongom v Kahero (Civil Suit 231 of 1993)
• Abednego Absolom Ongom v Amos Kahero (Civil Suit 231 of 1993)
• Departed Asians Property Custodian Board v Issa Bukenya [1993] UGSC 14

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