Ethiopian Airlines v Olowu (Civil Appeal 30 of 2003)
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 allowed the airline's appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in admitting the passenger's oral testimony to vary the terms of a written contract of carriage. Under sections 90-92 of the Evidence Act, extrinsic evidence cannot alter the contents of a written document; the air ticket and excess baggage ticket were prima facie evidence of the contract's terms under the Warsaw Convention. Any commitment by the Lagos area manager to accept undeclared excess weight could not bind the carrier because the court will not sanction an illegality, which overrides pleadings and estoppel. The awards of special and general damages were set aside.
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment and damages awards set aside
Facts
The respondent was a frequent-flier passenger of the appellant airline on the Lagos-Entebbe route. On 5 February 1999 she travelled from Lagos via Addis Ababa and Nairobi to Entebbe, checking in and identifying her luggage before boarding. Her air ticket entitled her to 20 kilograms, and she paid for a further 10 kilograms of excess baggage, giving a documented total of 30 kilograms across two pieces. On arrival at Entebbe she found part of her luggage missing and lodged a loss questionnaire, claiming lost items valued at USD 3,476. The airline denied liability, relying on the Warsaw Convention and pointing out that the received bag weighed 55 kilograms, exceeding the declared 30 kilograms by 25 kilograms. The respondent testified orally that her two bags together weighed 62 kilograms, though she did not know each bag's separate weight. The High Court believed her oral evidence and awarded USD 600 for the lost bag plus UGX 3 million for inconvenience.
Issues
- Whether the trial judge erred in relying on the respondent's oral testimony to vary the terms of a written contract of carriage governed by the Warsaw Convention.
- Whether the trial judge erred in finding that the respondent checked in two pieces of luggage weighing 30 kilograms each.
- Whether the award of USD 600 as special damages for lost baggage was justified.
- Whether the award of general damages of UGX 3 million for inconvenience was equitable.
Orders
- Appeal allowed.
- Judgment and orders of the High Court set aside.
- Each party to bear its own costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (10)
- Evidence Act s.90
- Evidence Act s.91
- Evidence Act s.92
- Warsaw Convention Article 1
- Warsaw Convention Article 3(1)(c)
- Warsaw Convention Article 3(2)
- Warsaw Convention Article 18
- Warsaw Convention Article 19
- Warsaw Convention Article 22
- Warsaw Convention Article 24
Cases cited (1)
- Uganda Revenue Authority v Steven Mabosi (Civil Appeal No. 26 of 1995)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.