Haji Asuman Mutekanga v Equator Growers(u) limited [1996] UGSC 12

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The Supreme Court held that where a defendant has neither entered appearance nor filed a defence and an interlocutory judgment has been entered, the defendant's counsel should not be permitted to participate or cross-examine witnesses at formal proof, the sole remaining issue being assessment of damages. The trial judge therefore erred in allowing such participation and in reopening the issue of breach, which had also been admitted. However, the plaintiff still bears the burden of proving his claim on the balance of probabilities; special damages and loss of profit must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. The appeal was allowed in part: special damages of Shs 5,678,800, general damages of Shs 1,000,000 and interest at 12% were awarded.

Outcome

Appeal allowed in part; High Court judgment set aside and substituted with awards of Shs 5,678,800 special damages, Shs 1,000,000 general damages, interest at 12%, and costs to the appellant.

Facts

By an agreement dated 30 September 1983 the respondent let its coffee factory to the appellant, a coffee dealer and processor, for three years from 1 October 1983 at a rent of Shs 700,000. The appellant took over and operated the factory. In November 1983 he was arrested and detained at Luzira Prison until July 1987, leaving his workers to continue the business. About a month after his arrest, officials of the respondent company chased the appellant's workers from the factory, after a meeting of directors resolved to terminate the arrangement. Coffee and other property belonging to the appellant — including clean and second-grade coffee, gunny bags, a lorry tyre and spare parts — were left at the factory and never recovered. The appellant sued for conversion of the listed property, loss of profit and general damages for breach of contract.

Issues

1. Whether the trial judge erred in allowing the respondent — which had not entered appearance or filed a defence — to participate in the proceedings and cross-examine the appellant and his witnesses at the formal proof hearing.
2. Whether the trial judge erred in disregarding the interlocutory judgment and reopening the question of breach of contract.
3. Whether the appellant proved his claims for special damages, loss of profit and general damages to the required standard.

Orders

• Appeal allowed in part.
• Judgment and orders of the High Court set aside.
• Award for items (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) in paragraph 6 of the plaint — Shs 5,678,800.
• General damages of Shs 1,000,000.
• Interest at the rate of 12% on the decretal amount.
• Costs of the suit and of the appeal to the appellant.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (3)

• Civil Procedure Rules Order 9 rule 6
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 9 rule 10
• Rules of the Supreme Court rule 97

Cases cited (5)

• Attorney General of Uganda v Charles Sengendo (Civil Appeal No. 14 of 1972)
• Kanji v Jinabhai (1934) 1 EACA 87
• Ratcliffe v Evans (1892) 2 Q.B. 524
• Monarch Steamship Co Ltd v Karlshamns Oljefabriker (1949) AC 196
• Prehn v Royal Bank of Liverpool (1870) LR 5 Ex 92

Cases citing this judgment (2)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Multiple ICD(U) Limited v Jaco Commercial Agencies Limited (Civil Appeal No.125 of 2020)
• China New Future (Uganda) Ltd v Hewlett Packard Development Co. L.P (Civil Appeal No. 130 of 2014)

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