Jingmen Eve New Energy Solutions Co Ltd v Nextera Energy Resources Uganda Limited and Others [2026] UGCOMMC 374

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.

Holding

The applicant, claiming to be the unpaid seller of battery modules shipped to the first respondent, sought release of containers detained pending customs and standards clearance, asserting an unpaid seller's lien. The Commercial Division held that an unpaid seller's lien under section 51(1)(a) of the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act subsists only while the seller retains possession of the goods. The applicant had lost possession, which passed to the first respondent as the consignee named in the bill of lading. A bill of lading is a document of title, and the consignee is the owner within the meaning of the East African Community Customs Management Act, 2004. The application was dismissed with costs to the third and fourth respondents.

Outcome

Application for release of the goods dismissed with costs to the 3rd and 4th Respondents

Facts

The applicant, Jingmen Eve New Energy Solutions Co Ltd, shipped containers of battery modules to the first respondent as consignee, evidenced by a bill of lading and cargo specification. Claiming to be the unpaid seller, the applicant intercepted the goods while they were in the custody of the second respondent at an internal container depot. The third respondent, the Uganda National Bureau of Standards, issued a manual seizure to prevent release until the consignment's conformity to standards was verified, the goods not having appeared on the UNBS online system nor been presented for inspection or clearance. The consignment remained in the second respondent's warehouse pending inspection. The third respondent had been approached by SYSCO Corporation Africa Limited, which claimed the consignment had been transferred to it by the first respondent, but SYSCO had not presented the required import documents or certificate of conformity. The goods were said to be time-bound and prone to expiry. The applicant sought orders releasing the goods to it as shipper, exporter and unpaid seller.

Issues

1. Whether the containers of battery modules consigned to the 1st Respondent, and in the possession and charge of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents, should be released to the Applicant.
2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

• Application dismissed with costs to the 3rd and 4th Respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (12)

• Civil Procedure Act, Cap 282 s.98
• Civil Procedure Act, Cap 282 s.27(2)
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 O.52 rr.1 & 3
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 O.9 r.20(1)(a)
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 O.15 r.3
• Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, Cap 292 s.1(1)
• Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, Cap 292 s.51
• East African Community Customs Management Act, 2004 s.2
• Evidence Act, Cap 8 s.101
• Evidence Act, Cap 8 s.103
• Uganda National Bureau of Standards Act, Cap 210
• Uganda National Bureau of Standards (Inspection and Clearance of Imports) Regulations, 2022

Cases cited (5)

• Hans Anderson Paper & Anor v Crown Converters Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 11 of 2010)
• Hans Anderson Vs Ponderosa Logistics Ltd(supra)
• Senkungu & 4 Ors v Mukasa (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2014)
• Jovelyn Barugahare v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 28 of 1993)
• Uganda Development Bank Vs Muganga Construction Co. Ltd (1981) HCB 35

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