Wakilii

Esom International Tours (U) Limited v Nagoya Co Limited T a Nagoya Customs Bonded Warehouse (Civil Suit No. 834 of 2014)

High Court · [2020] UGCOMMC 160 · 2020 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 and damages arising from flood damage to a bonded vehicle
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff with damages and 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

The court held that the plaintiff's vehicle was damaged by floods while in the defendant's bonded warehouse custody. The defendant breached its contractual obligation to safely keep the vehicle and was liable to compensate the plaintiff. The court awarded general damages of UGX 50,000,000 for loss of business and special damages of UGX 23,043,721 for proved repair costs, with interest on both awards.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff with damages and costs

Facts

The plaintiff imported a Jeep Cherokee from the UK in December 2012 and deposited it in the defendant's customs bonded warehouse at Kireka, Kampala, pending clearance from URA. The vehicle was stored for a demurrage fee of UGX 4,000 per day. Around May 2013, the defendant's warehouse flooded, causing a wall to collapse and water to enter the plaintiff's vehicle. The plaintiff discovered the damage in June 2013 when visiting the warehouse. The vehicle's interior was wet, chrome was rusted, and electrical systems were damaged. URA directed a mechanical diagnosis at Spear Motors in September 2014, which confirmed flood damage with repair estimates of UGX 20,993,311. URA subsequently suspended the defendant's operating licence for failing to settle repair costs. The plaintiff, a tourism company, lost business use of the vehicle from May 2013 to October 2014.

Issues

  1. Whether the Plaintiff's vehicle was damaged by floods while in custody of the Defendant's bonded warehouse.
  2. Whether the Defendant has or had the obligation to make good the damages occasioned onto the Plaintiff's car.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The Plaintiff is awarded general damages of UGX 50,000,000.
  • The Plaintiff is awarded special damages in a total sum of UGX 23,043,721.
  • Interest to accrue on the award of general damages at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Interest to accrue on the award of special damages at the rate of 19% from the date of filing the suit until payment in full.
  • The Plaintiff is awarded 1/2 of the taxed costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Bailment — Duty of Bailee — Obligation to Keep Goods Safely
A bailee who receives goods for storage under a contract is under an obligation to keep those goods safely, and breach of that obligation gives rise to liability for damage occurring while the goods are in the bailee's custody.
Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Performance of Obligations — Express and Implied Terms
Under section 36 of the Contracts Act, every party has a duty to perform its obligations under the contract, and this duty covers both the implied and express terms of the contract.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Restitutio in Integrum — Restoration Principle
General damages are awarded to fulfill the common law remedy of restitutio in integrum, meaning the plaintiff must be restored as nearly as possible to the position he would have been in had the injury complained of not occurred, but should not be placed in a better position than he would have been absent the wrong.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Loss of Business — Assessment
Where a plaintiff's business vehicle is damaged by the defendant's breach of contract, the plaintiff is entitled to general damages for loss of business during the period the vehicle could not serve its intended purpose, assessed within the court's discretion based on the duration of the loss and the nature of the business.
Damages & Quantum — Special Damages — Pleading and Proof Requirements
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and proved by evidence showing that the loss was incurred and that it was the direct result of the defendant's conduct; it is not sufficient merely to plead special damages without presenting documentary or oral evidence to substantiate the claim.
Damages & Quantum — Special Damages — Recoverability — Pre-existing Obligations
A plaintiff cannot recover as special damages amounts paid in fulfillment of a pre-existing obligation that was unaffected by the defendant's breach; such payments must be proved to be the direct result of the defendant's wrongful conduct to qualify as recoverable special damages.
Damages & Quantum — Interest on Damages — Discretion of Court — Commercial Transactions
Where no rate of interest is agreed, the court has discretionary power under section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act to award interest on damages, and in commercial transactions the award should reflect the current commercial value of money.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (10)

  • Haji Asuman Mutekenga v Equator Growers (U) Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1995)
  • Assist (U) Ltd v Italian Asphalt and Haulage & Another (High Court Civil Suit No. 1291 of 1999)
  • Dharamshi v Karsan [1974] 1 EA 41
  • Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited v Haji Yahaya Sekalega (Civil Suit No. 185 of 2009)
  • Kamuntu Anthony v Hajat Zam Sendagire & Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 188 of 2019)
  • Joseph Musoke v Departed Asian Property Custodian Board and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1992)
  • Sarah Watsemwa Goseltine and Another v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 675 of 2006)
  • Gapco (U) Ltd v A.S. Transporters (U) Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2004)
  • Orient Bank Limted Vs Gilfilian Air Conditioning (Ug) Ltd
  • Crescent Transportation Co. Ltd v B.M Technical Services Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2000)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Esom International Tours (U) Limited v Nagoya Co Limited T a Nagoya Customs Bonded Warehouse (Civil Suit No. 834 of 2014) [2020] UGCommC 160 (30 October 2020)
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.