Fresh Cuts (U) Limited v Spedag Interfreight (U) Limited [2026] UGCOMMC 379
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 a valid transportation contract existed for both consignments, the plaintiff having accepted the defendant's revised quotation by conduct through submission of shipping documents despite not signing. No 30-day credit facility was agreed; the payment term required 100% payment against invoice. The plaintiff breached by failing to pay, so the defendant lawfully exercised its express contractual and possessory lien and sold the perishable cargo. The plaintiff's suit was dismissed with costs, and the counterclaim succeeded: the defendant recovered USD 19,208.90 in incidental charges plus UGX 100,000,000 general damages, with interest and costs.
Outcome
Plaintiff's suit dismissed with costs; counterclaim succeeded with judgment for the counterclaimant of USD 19,208.90 and UGX 100,000,000 general damages, plus interest and costs.
Facts
In 2019 the plaintiff engaged the defendant, a clearing and forwarding company, to transport two consignments to Kampala: one from Devro SRO (Czech Republic) and one from Tamaco International (Denmark), a 40-foot refrigerated container of frozen chicken MDM. The defendant issued quotations whose terms required 100% payment against invoice prior to release, with attached general conditions creating a possessory lien. The plaintiff did not sign the revised quotation but submitted shipping documents and appointed the defendant as its URA clearing agent, performing the offer's terms. The plaintiff later applied for a 30-day credit facility, but a credit evaluation found it not creditworthy and the defendant communicated disapproval. The Devro consignment was delivered and paid, discharging that contract. For the Tamaco container, the defendant cleared and transported the cargo to Nakawa but the plaintiff never paid the invoice, insisting on credit that was never agreed. The defendant retained the perishable cargo under its lien and sold it, incurring demurrage, electricity plug-in and storage charges.
Issues
- Whether there was a contract of transportation for the two consignments from Tamaco International and Devro SRO, and if so, who breached the contract.
- Whether the plaintiff and defendant agreed upon a 30-day credit facility before commencement of the transportation contract.
- Whether the defendant's sale of the consignment of frozen chicken MDM was proper.
- What remedies are available to the parties.
Orders
- The suit is dismissed with costs to the Defendant.
- Judgment is entered for the Counterclaimant against the Counter Defendant.
- A declaration that the Counter Defendant breached the contract.
- An order for payment of USD 19,208.90.
- General damages of UGX 100,000,000.
- Interest on the USD 19,208.90 at 21% per annum from the date of filing the counterclaim until payment in full.
- Interest on the general damages at 6% per annum from the date of judgment until payment in full.
- Costs of the suit to the Counterclaimant.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (11)
- Contracts Act, Cap 284 s.2
- Contracts Act, Cap 284 s.6(3)
- Contracts Act, Cap 284 s.7
- Contracts Act, Cap 284 s.9(1)
- Contracts Act, Cap 284 s.9(2)
- Contracts Act, Cap 284 s.32(1)
- Contracts Act, Cap 284 s.60(1)
- Evidence Act, Cap 8 s.101
- Evidence Act, Cap 8 s.103
- Civil Procedure Act, Cap 282 s.27(1)
- Civil Procedure Act, Cap 282 s.27(2)
Cases cited (20)
- Parker Vs South Eastern Railways Co (1877) 2 CPD 416
- Africa Polysack Industries Limited v Sugar and Allied Industries Limited (Civil Suit No. 174 of 2016)
- Green Boat Entertainment Ltd v City Council of Kampala (Civil Suit No. 0580 of 2003)
- Karegyeya Geoffrey v Mugabi Innocent T/A Ssemanda & Sons Est (Civil Suit No. 753 of 2019)
- Behange Vs School Outfitters(U) Ltd [2000]1 E. A 20 at 21
- Barclays Bank of Uganda Limited v Bakojja (Civil Suit No. 53 of 2011)
- United Building Services Ltd v Yafesi Muzira T/A Quickest Builders and Co. (Civil Suit No. 0154 of 2005)
- Nakawa Trading Co. Ltd v Coffee Marketing Board (Civil Suit No. 137 of 1991)
- Senkungu & 4 Ors v Mukasa (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2014)
- Jovelyn Barugahare v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 28 of 1993)
- Miller Vs Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372
- Storms Vs Hutchinson [1905] A.C 515
- Robert Cuossens v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1999)
- Crown Beverages Ltd v Sendu Edwards (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2005)
- Bank of Uganda v Kabuye (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2020)
- Uganda Commercial Bank Vs Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305 at 307
- Crescent Transportation Co Ltd v Bin Technical Services Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2000)
- Premchandra Shenoi & Anor v Maximov Oleg Petrovich (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2003)
- Ushillani v Kampala Pharmaceuticals Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1998)
- Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd Vs West End Distributors Ltd (No.2) [1970] EA 469
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.