Wakilii

Jas Projects Ltd v Emiru Angose (HCT-00-CC-CS 280 of 2005)

High Court · [2012] UGCOMMC 11 · 2012 Judgment for Defendant AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of monies allegedly unremitted under an agency agreement, with counterclaim for unpaid commission
Decision
Both head suit and counterclaim dismissed due to failure to strictly prove special damages

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

Held that both the plaintiff's claim for USD 302,435 in allegedly unremitted funds and the defendant's counterclaim for USD 45,176 in unpaid commission failed because neither party proved their special damages to the required standard. The court found the evidence regarding alleged looting in Goma unreliable and could not determine on the evidence whether signatures were forged where three different signature styles were in contention. Both head suit and counterclaim dismissed, with each party bearing own costs.

Outcome

Both head suit and counterclaim dismissed due to failure to strictly prove special damages

Facts

The plaintiff company and defendant entered a memorandum of understanding on 1 August 1997 whereby the defendant acted as the plaintiff's agent to run its merchandise business in Goma, DRC, in consideration for 20% commission on profits. The plaintiff supplied goods from September 1997 to December 2001. The plaintiff alleged the defendant failed to remit USD 302,435. The defendant claimed goods worth USD 176,405 were looted following a volcano eruption on 17 January 2002 and reported this to Goma police. The plaintiff challenged this report as false and also alleged that the defendant forged signatures in a 'splendid book' used for accountability, showing receipt by the plaintiff's director of USD 141,030. The defendant counterclaimed USD 45,176 in unpaid commission. Both parties relied on conflicting police reports from Goma made years apart and disputed audit reports.

Issues

  1. Whether the report made by Idunga of looting goods worth USD 176,045 was false.
  2. Whether Mohamed Abubaker Mohamed's signatures for USD 141,030 were forged.
  3. Whether the defendant is liable to pay the sum claimed by the plaintiff.
  4. Whether the defendant is entitled to the counter-claim.
  5. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Head suit dismissed.
  • Counterclaim dismissed.
  • Each party to bear their own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Documentary Evidence — Hearsay — Statements Made in Official Documents from Foreign Jurisdiction
Where official documents originate from a foreign jurisdiction and the authors cannot be procured to testify without unreasonable delay or expense, the statements made therein are relevant facts under Evidence Act s.30(b) notwithstanding that they contradict each other, though the weight given to such evidence depends on corroboration by witnesses who do testify.
Evidence — Burden and Standard of Proof — Civil Cases — Balance of Probabilities
In civil matters the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to prove his case on the balance of probabilities, and the plaintiff must discharge this burden with sufficient evidence even where competing accounts exist.
Evidence — Expert Evidence — Handwriting Analysis — Weight Where Assumptions Unsupported
Where a handwriting expert's opinion rests on assumptions not backed by evidence, and where multiple signature styles are in contention rather than the two contemplated by the expert, the court is entitled to decline to act on that expert opinion.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Special Damage — Requirement of Strict Proof
A claim for special damages must not only be specifically pleaded but must also be strictly proved with independent evidence particularising how the sum is made up; scanty or incomplete book-keeping records do not satisfy this standard.
Civil Procedure — Counterclaim — Proof of Special Damages
A counterclaim is substantially a cross-suit and must be treated as an independent action; a counterclaim for special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved, and an audit report prepared solely on information provided by the defendant without reference to source material or supporting documents does not constitute strict proof.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (1)

  • Sebuliba v Cooperative Bank [1982] HCB 129

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Jas Projects Ltd v Emiru Angose (HCT-00-CC-CS 280 of 2005) [2012] UGCommC 11 (27 February 2012)
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.