Wakilii

Food & Beverage Ltd v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 78 of 2012)

Court of Appeal · [2019] UGCA 122 · 2019 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First civil appeal from a High Court judgment concerning the quantum of an award for breach of contract and a counterclaim.
Decision
Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment (appellant awarded net US$456,564.64 after set-off) upheld.

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

By majority, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against the quantum of an award for breach of contract. The majority held that the claim and counterclaim arose from the same import transaction, that the Attorney General had locus standi to counterclaim on behalf of the wholly government-owned defunct company, and that a limitation objection could not be raised for the first time on appeal because it was not pleaded or determined at trial. The counterclaim of US$274,048.36 was found proved. The Court declined to interfere with the trial Judge's order that each party bear its own costs, since both parties succeeded in part. Madrama, JA dissented, finding the counterclaim statute barred.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment (appellant awarded net US$456,564.64 after set-off) upheld.

Facts

The appellant filed HCCS 34 of 1994 against Transocean (U) Ltd claiming US$960,018 for breach of contract to clear and transport consignments of sugar and salt from Mombasa to Kampala between 1987 and 1989. While the suit was pending, Transocean was liquidated under the Public Enterprises Reform and Divestiture Act. The appellant presented its claim to the Privatization Unit; the Auditor General verified US$730,613 as due. By letter dated 12 July 2000 the Solicitor General agreed the verified sum would be settled if the appellant withdrew HCCS 34 of 1994, which the appellant did. When payment was not made, the appellant filed HCCS 542 of 2001 against the Attorney General. The Attorney General denied liability and counterclaimed US$274,048.56 for money the appellant owed Transocean arising from the same transaction. The trial Judge awarded the appellant US$730,613, allowed the counterclaim of US$274,048.36, and entered judgment for a net US$456,564.64 after set-off, with each party bearing its own costs.

Issues

  1. Whether the Attorney General had locus standi to maintain the counterclaim for money owed to the divested company Transocean (U) Ltd.
  2. Whether the counterclaim was time barred under the Limitation Act and whether it was proved.
  3. Whether the trial Judge disregarded the government's acknowledgement of the appellant's full claim and promise to pay.
  4. Whether the trial Judge erred in ordering each party to bear its own costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed for lack of merit.
  • Appellant to pay the costs of the appeal.
  • Each party to bear its own costs at the High Court.

Rules and key headnotes

Appeals — Grounds Not Raised at Trial — Limitation Objection Raised for First Time on Appeal
A matter not raised and determined at trial, such as a limitation objection, cannot be introduced as a fresh ground on appeal, and an appellate court will not fault a trial Judge on an issue he did not adjudicate.
Divestiture — Locus Standi — Government's Right to Counterclaim on Behalf of Wholly-Owned Divested Company
Where a claim and counterclaim arise from the same transaction involving a wholly government-owned company that has been divested and liquidated, the government, through the Attorney General, has locus standi to counterclaim for sums owed to that company.
Debt — Set-Off — Acknowledgement of Claim Does Not Preclude Counterclaim from Same Transaction
A party's acknowledgement of a debt owed to a claimant does not preclude an offset for sums the claimant owes arising from the same transaction, and the two obligations may be netted against each other.
Costs — Discretion of Court — Departure from Costs Follow the Event
Although costs generally follow the event, the award of costs is in the discretion of the court under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, and an order that each party bear its own costs is justified where both parties succeeded in their respective claims.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (7)

  • Begumisa v Tibebaga (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2002)
  • Coghlan v Cumberland [1898] 1 Ch 704
  • Pandya v R (1957) EA 336
  • Ongom Odongo v Binega Donge (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2008)
  • Fang Min v Belex Tours and Travel Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2013)
  • Jones v Bellegrove Properties Ltd [1949] 2 All ER 198
  • Madhvani International SA v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 48 of 2004)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Food & Beverage Ltd Vs Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 78 of 2012) [2019] UGCA 122 (23 May 2019)
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.