Esso Standard (U) Limited v Semu (Civil Appeal 3 of 1993)

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

Following the court's earlier judgment allowing the appeal in part and upholding an award of shs.6,140,000 as the value of a safe, the matter was referred to the Deputy Chief Justice for settlement of the extracted order, the parties disagreeing only on where the safe should be inspected. The court held that no reference was truly necessary as its order was clear and counsel had agreed to abide by the High Court order. On counsel striking a compromise, the court made an order in agreed terms: the safe be taken to the High Court at Kampala within 14 days and opened before the Registrar; if it does not open it is not the respondent's safe and the appellant must pay the assessed value of shs.6,140,000; if it opens the respondent must accept it.

Outcome

Order made by consent for inspection of the safe at the High Court, with payment of the assessed value contingent on the safe failing to open.

Facts

The respondent had sued the appellant company in the High Court for breach of contract and for the return or replacement of property he lost while managing the appellant's petrol station at Tororo, the contract having been abruptly terminated. The trial judge gave judgment for the respondent, awarding general and special damages and ordering the appellant either to return a safe with its contents intact or pay shs.6,140,000 in lieu. On appeal the Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part but upheld the shs.6,140,000 value of the safe, without dealing with its return as that issue was not then raised and the safe was reported unavailable. When the respondent's counsel extracted an order mentioning only the payment, the appellant declined to consent, now claiming the safe was available, and the matter was referred for settlement. The only live disagreement was where the safe should be inspected.

Issues

1. How the order of the court should be settled, and in particular where and how the disputed safe should be inspected to determine whether the appellant must return it or pay its assessed value.

Orders

• The safe be taken to the High Court at Kampala within 14 days and opened in the presence of the Registrar of the High Court.
• If the safe cannot be opened, it is not the respondent's original safe and the appellant shall pay him the assessed value of shs.6,140,000.
• If the safe opens, the respondent must accept it as it is, he having held the keys throughout.
• Today's costs shall be in the cause.

Legislation cited (1)

• Rules of the Supreme Court r.14(c)

Cases citing this judgment (13)

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.

• Bukuli v Bigirwenkya (Civil Suit 10 of 2021)
• Wakiso District Local Government v Serwadda Joseph (Civil Appeal 66 of 2020)
• Lukenge Hakeem v Hajati Namagembe and Others (Civil Application No. 290 of 2020)
• DFCU Bank Limited v Donna Kamuli (Civil Appeal 121 of 2016)
• Magino v National Medicals Stores (Civil Appeal 79 of 2006)
• Umeme Ltd v Makubuya T a Polla plastic (Civil Appeal No. 0216 of 2015)
• Ebiju v Umeme Ltd (Civil Suit No. 0133 of 2012) followed
• Dorothy Tuma v Muller Elizabeth & Anor (Civil Suit No. 229 of 2011)
• Alaka & Co. Advocates v Metropolitan Properties Ltd (Civil Suit No. 621 of 2007)
• Uganda Revenue Authority v David Kitamirike (Civil Appeal 43 of 2010)
• Uganda Revenue Authority v Wanume David Katamirike (Civil Appeal No. 43 of 2010)
• Bank of Uganda v Betty Tinkamanyire [2008] UGSC 21
• Pyrali Abdul v Sibo (Consitutional Petition 9 of 1997)

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