Wakilii

Incargo Freighters & Agents Ltd v Commissioner of Customs Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Suit No. 513 of 2012)

High Court · [2013] UGCOMMC 137 · 2013 Preliminary Objection Stayed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for compensation and damages arising from impounding of trade goods
Decision
Preliminary objection stayed; matter to proceed to full trial

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 declined to determine the preliminary point of law raised by the defendant on the grounds that insufficient evidence had been adduced. The court held that where facts relevant to a point of law remain unproven, determination would be premature. The procedure under Order 6 Rules 28 and 29 CPR is to be sparingly used only where facts are clear-cut with no room for additional evidence. The preliminary objection was stayed pending full trial on merits.

Outcome

Preliminary objection stayed; matter to proceed to full trial

Facts

The plaintiff imported six containers of Tiger Head brand batteries from China in August 2012. Two containers were released on 2 August 2012 but were impounded by URA officials while being transported. The impounding occurred on or about 3 August 2012. An interim court order was subsequently issued on 21 August 2012 in a separate suit (HCCS 333 of 2012) brought by Guangzhou Tiger Head Batteries Group Ltd against the plaintiff and URA, directing URA to detain and preserve the plaintiff's containers. A temporary injunction to the same effect was granted on 19 October 2012. The goods were eventually released on 22 February 2013. The plaintiff filed this suit on 1 November 2012 seeking compensation for loss suffered from the impounding, claiming demurrage for the containers and motor vehicles used to transport the goods.

Issues

  1. Whether the impounding of the plaintiff's goods by the defendant was illegal
  2. Whether the plaintiff's suit discloses a cause of action against the defendant
  3. Whether the defendant's preliminary objection to the suit should be upheld

Orders

  • The preliminary point of law raised by the defendant is stayed pending the hearing of the suit on merits.
  • The costs of the preliminary point of law shall abide the final outcome of the suit.
  • The parties are at liberty to address the court again on whether the goods were lawfully impounded after adducing necessary evidence during final submissions.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Points of Law — Determination on Agreed Facts
The procedure under Order 6 Rules 28 and 29 of the Civil Procedure Rules permits determination of a point of law that substantially disposes of a suit, but should be sparingly used and only in exceptional circumstances where the facts relevant to the point of law are so clear-cut on the pleadings that there is no room for evidence upon any fact pleaded which would assist in the decision of that point of law.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Premature Determination — Need for Evidence
Where facts or facts in issue relevant to a point of law remain to be proved, determination of the point of law would be premature and should abide the final outcome of the suit. A point of law should not be determined if some facts in issue are yet to be proved.
Civil Procedure — Cause of Action — Disclosure in Pleadings
A cause of action has three essential elements: the existence of the plaintiff's rights, the violation of that right, and the liability of the defendant for the violation. A suit should not be summarily dismissed unless it is hopeless, without the full facts of the case being adduced in evidence.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (10)

  • Housing Finance Bank Ltd v Edward Musisi (Court of Appeal Miscellaneous Application No. 158 of 2010)
  • Muwema and Mugerwa Advocates and Solicitors v Shell (U) Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2011)
  • Auto Garage v Motokov [1971] EA 514
  • Jenison v Baker [1972] 1 All ER 997
  • Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd v Commissioner General URA (Miscellaneous Application No. 0042 of 2010)
  • Republic v Dunn [1965] EA 467
  • R v Ajit Singh [1957] EA 822
  • Major General Tinyefuza v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Ismail Serugo v Kampala City Council and another
  • NAS Airport Services Ltd v Attorney-General of Kenya [1959] 1 EA 53

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Incargo Freighters & Agents Ltd v Commissioner of Customs Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Suit No. 513 of 2012) [2013] UGCommC 137 (7 August 2013)
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.