John Tiborugaba Kasangaki and Another v Rajeev Jain and Others (Civil Appeal No. 69 of 2013)

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 Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against the 1st appellant but struck out the 2nd appellant company. It held there was no evidence linking the 2nd appellant company to the transactions, so its corporate veil could not be lifted. Documentary evidence and the 1st appellant's own letters established a contract with the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents (R & R Bikes); the 4th respondent was merely a commission agent/middleman. Payment was to be by honouring bills of exchange through the bank; cash paid to the 4th respondent did not discharge the debt. The expert handwriting report, admitted by consent, could be relied on and supporting testimony was admissible. Judgment for special and general damages was upheld against the 1st appellant only.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed against the 1st appellant; 2nd appellant company struck out; trial court awards of US$53,872 special damages and Ug. Shs. 15,000,000 general damages upheld against the 1st appellant only

Facts

The 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents were Indian citizens trading in partnership as R & R Bikes. The 1st appellant, a Ugandan trading under names including Jokas, Bullion Miners J.K and Roadmaster Jokas, was also a director/shareholder in the 2nd appellant company (Bullion Miners Ltd). From May 2001 to January 2002, R & R Bikes supplied bicycles and bicycle parts worth US$151,271 in five consignments, with payment to be made by telegraphic transfer through Uganda Commercial Bank against bills of exchange (drafts) honoured within 90 days. The appellants remitted US$97,400, leaving US$53,871 outstanding. The 1st appellant claimed he dealt only with the 4th respondent, Vishal, as a principal and had paid the balance in cash to him, tendering receipts (Exhibits D1 and D2). The respondents contended the 4th respondent was only a commission agent/middleman, that the agreed payment mode was through the bank, and that the cash receipts contained fraudulent insertions, supported by a handwriting expert report. R & R Bikes was never fully paid.

Issues

1. Whether there was a contract between the appellants and the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents trading as R & R Bikes.
2. Whether the 2nd appellant company was properly held liable, given the doctrine of separate corporate personality.
3. Whether the 4th respondent contracted with the 1st appellant as a principal or as a commission agent/middleman of R & R Bikes.
4. Whether cash payments made to the 4th respondent discharged the 1st appellant's obligations, given the agreed mode of payment through bills of exchange/bank.
5. Whether the trial Judge properly relied on the handwriting expert report tendered by a person who was not its author.
6. Whether the trial Judge erred in making a finding of fraud/forgery allegedly not pleaded.

Orders

• The 2nd appellant is struck out from the respondents' pleadings and off the record.
• The appeal is dismissed.
• The 1st appellant shall pay 4/5 of the costs of this appeal to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents.
• The 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents are awarded special damages of US Dollars 53,872 and general damages of Ug. Shs. 15,000,000, payable by the 1st appellant only.
• Interest on damages and costs of the suit at court rate from the date of the trial court judgment until payment in full.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (12)

• Evidence Act, Cap. 6 s.22
• Evidence Act, Cap. 6 s.43
• Evidence Act, Cap. 6 s.62(e)
• Evidence Act, Cap. 6 s.64(5)
• Evidence Act, Cap. 6 s.101
• Bills of Exchange Act, Cap. 68 s.2(1)
• Bills of Exchange Act, Cap. 68 s.46
• Bills of Exchange Act, Cap. 68 s.53
• Sale of Goods Act, Cap. 82 s.38(1)
• Civil Procedure Rules S.I 71-1 Order 6 rule 3
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 rules 6 and 7
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 rule 30(1)(a)

Cases cited (16)

• Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22
• Tororo Cement Co Ltd v Frokina International Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2001)
• Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd v Uganda Crocs Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2004)
• Paul K Ssemogerere and 2 Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2002)
• Interfreight Forwarders v East African Development Bank [1990-1994] EA 117
• Tweddle v Atkinson (1861) 121 ER 762
• Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd [1915] AC 847
• Kimani v Republic [2000] EA 417
• Saunders v Anglia Building Society [1971] AC 1004
• National Social Security Fund and Another v Alcon International Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2009)
• Fredrick J K Zaabwe v Orient Bank Ltd and 5 Others (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006)
• Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)
• Active Automobile Spares Ltd v Crane Bank (Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2001)
• Uganda v George Wilson Simbwa (Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 2005)
• Attorney General v Baranga [1976] HCB 45
• Mawanda and Another v Kobil (U) Ltd [2013] UGCommC 167

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

• Maruk v Attorney General and Judicial Service Commission (Consolidated Civil Suit 148 of 2015; Consolidated Civil Suit 149 of 2015)

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