Wakilii

Foods & Verages Limited v Musisi (Civil Appeal 32 of 1992)

Supreme Court · [1993] UGSC 43 · 1993 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from a High Court judgment awarding general damages in a suit for trespass, conversion and destruction of a motor vehicle
Decision
Appeal partly allowed; general damages reduced from Shs 20,000,000 to Shs 10,000,000

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 Supreme Court considered whether a party that seized and retained another's lorry under an honest but mistaken claim of right was liable when the vehicle was cannibalised in its custody, and whether failure to plead general damages barred recovery. Held: the appellant's conduct was not conversion because it honestly believed it had a claim of right, but it was liable in trespass for the destruction of the lorry, proved to have occurred while in its custody after it ignored police notice of the true owner. Trespass to a chattel is actionable per se, so pleading general damages was unnecessary. The Shs 20,000,000 award was on the higher side and was reduced to Shs 10,000,000; appeal partly allowed.

Outcome

Appeal partly allowed; general damages reduced from Shs 20,000,000 to Shs 10,000,000

Facts

In May 1975 the appellant company and the respondent each bought a new Tata lorry from the same Kampala dealer. On registration the dealer mistakenly swapped their number plates, so each took delivery bearing the other's number unknowingly. The respondent's lorry was taken by soldiers in 1976, recovered from Sudan and repaired. On re-licensing the plate mix-up was discovered; the respondent surrendered the plate and was issued a new number. In January 1982, while the respondent's lorry was hired to carry salt from the appellant's stores, the appellant seized it claiming ownership. Police investigated and repeatedly informed the appellant (exhibit P9 and later correspondence) that the lorry belonged to the respondent, but the appellant retained it, demanding inspection of the chassis and engine numbers. The vehicle remained in the appellant's yard until June 1985, when it was handed to police and towed away; by then several parts had been removed and it was no longer running. A loss assessor valued replacement at Shs 3,000,000 and found repair uneconomical. The respondent sued for trespass, conversion and destruction of the vehicle.

Issues

  1. Whether the appellant held the suit vehicle under an honest claim of right such that its conduct did not amount to conversion.
  2. Whether the appellant was liable in trespass for the cannibalisation and destruction of the vehicle that occurred while it was in the appellant's custody.
  3. Whether the respondent's failure to plead general damages was fatal to his claim.
  4. Whether the award of Shs 20,000,000 in general damages was excessive.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed in part.
  • Award of Shs 20,000,000 general damages set aside.
  • Shs 10,000,000 general damages substituted in favour of the respondent.
  • Appellant to have half the costs of the suit and of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Trespass to Goods — Actionable Per Se
Trespass to a chattel affords compensation for any injury to the chattel and is actionable per se, that is, without proof of actual damage; the sole question is whether the defendant directly interfered with the plaintiff's possession of the chattel.
Conversion — Honest Claim of Right
A party who detains the goods of another in the honest belief that it has a claim of right to them does not thereby commit conversion of those goods.
Detention of Chattel After Notice of True Owner — Liability for Damage
Where a party retains another's chattel after being notified by competent inquiry of the true owner, and the chattel is cannibalised or damaged while in its custody, it is liable for that damage; in ignoring such notice it acts at its peril.
Pleadings — General Damages
Failure to plead general damages is not fatal to a claim where the cause of action is trespass to a chattel, which is actionable per se, rendering the pleading of damages unnecessary.
Assessment — Appellate Interference with Award
An appellate court may set aside a general-damages award that is on the higher side and substitute a sum that fairly compensates the plaintiff, having regard to the period of deprivation of use and the replacement value of the chattel.

Cases cited (1)

  • Clayton v Le Roy [1911] 2 KB 1031

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Foods & Verages Limited v Musisi (Civil Appeal 32 of 1992) [1993] UGSC 43 (16 November 1993)
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.