Glorious Transport Co. Ltd V Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 1040 of 1990)
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 High Court held the government liable for conversion and detinue where NRA soldiers seized and retained the plaintiff's lorry during military operations in 1985-1986. The seizure occurred so proximate to the NRA's assumption of governmental powers on 26 January 1986 that it formed part of continuation of operations consequent upon that assumption. The government cannot claim immunity under Legal Notice No. 1 of 1986 and Amendment Decree No. 1 of 1987 for torts committed during this period. The plaintiff was awarded replacement value and loss of earnings.
Outcome
Judgment entered for the plaintiff with damages and costs
Facts
The plaintiff company owned a Fiat Lorry registration number UWH 048, purchased new in 1977 and later mortgaged to National Industrial Credit, with the mortgage subsequently lifted. On 16 November 1985, the plaintiff's driver took the vehicle on a business trip to Mityana to collect produce. While at a petrol station in Mityana, NRA soldiers seized the vehicle and commandeered it for military operations. The driver was forced to remain and drive the vehicle for the soldiers until 12 January 1986, when he was released eight miles from Kampala, leaving the lorry with the soldiers. The vehicle was never returned despite repeated demands and was reduced to scrap. The plaintiff brought suit for detinue and/or conversion, seeking recovery of the vehicle's value and damages.
Issues
- Whether the Plaintiff Company is the owner of the said vehicle.
- Whether the said suit vehicle is lost to the defendant.
- What remedies if any are available to the plaintiff.
Orders
- Replacement value of the vehicle awarded at UGX 42,000,000.
- Loss of earnings awarded at UGX 10,522,000.
- Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.
- Interest on decretal amount awarded at court rate.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (2)
- Legal Notice No. 1 of 1986
- Amendment Decree No. 1 of 1987 s.12
Cases cited (2)
- Freku Enterprises Ltd v Attorney General (1991) HCB 68
- UCB v Matiya Wasswa (Court of Appeal No. 6 of 1982)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.