Wakilii

Kamagara Charles v Uganda Railways Corporation (Civil Suit No.846 of 2005) (Civil Suit No.846 of 2005)

High Court · [2009] UGHC 4 · 2009 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for breach of contract of carriage
Decision
Plaintiff's claim allowed in full with damages and costs awarded against defendant

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

In a contract of carriage dispute, the court held that the consignment note constitutes prima facie evidence of the contract terms and the quantity of goods received by the carrier. Where the carrier takes over goods and later delivers a reduced quantity without making qualifying marks on the consignment note at the point of receipt, and the goods were within the carrier's exclusive custody during transit, the burden shifts to the carrier under Evidence Act s.106 to explain the loss. Carrier held liable for value of lost goods plus general damages for breach of contract.

Outcome

Plaintiff's claim allowed in full with damages and costs awarded against defendant

Facts

Plaintiff, a sugar importer, contracted defendant railway corporation to transport sugar from Mwanza, Tanzania to Kampala, Uganda in three separate consignments during June-August 2005. The sugar had been imported from South Africa via ship to Dar-es-Salaam, then transported by Tanzania Railways to Mwanza. Consignment notes were executed showing 800, 860, and 800 bags respectively loaded onto three wagons. Upon offloading at Port Bell, Kampala in the presence of customs, police and parties' representatives, tally sheets showed significant shortages: only 615 of 800 bags received from first wagon (185 lost), 523 of 860 from second wagon (337 lost), and 440 of 800 from third wagon (360 lost). Wagon seals were intact except for one which had been tampered with. Total loss: 882 bags valued at US$24,391.52. Defendant denied liability, claiming it did not load the cargo and was not involved in preparing consignment notes, though this was contradicted by evidence showing defendant's Dar-es-Salaam representative executed the contract.

Issues

  1. Whether or not the defendant lost the plaintiff's sugar as alleged in the plaint.
  2. What is the value of the lost sugar.
  3. What are the remedies available to the plaintiff.

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the plaintiff against the defendant.
  • Defendant to pay plaintiff US$24,391.52 or its equivalent in Uganda currency at the rate of exchange obtaining at the date of payment, being the value of the lost sugar.
  • Defendant to pay plaintiff UGX 5,000,000 general damages for breach of contract.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Documentary Evidence — Consignment Notes — Admissibility and Evidential Value
A consignment note is prima facie evidence of the making of the contract of carriage, the conditions of the contract, and the receipt of the cargo by the carrier. Pursuant to Evidence Act s.91, consignment notes are admissible as documents constituting the contract of carriage to the exclusion of other evidence in proof of the terms of that contract.
Commercial Law — Contract of Carriage — Carrier's Duty to Verify Cargo on Receipt
On taking over cargo, a carrier is required to check the accuracy of the particulars and statements contained in the consignment note as to the quantity, number of packages, marks, numbers, weight, and condition of the cargo and its packaging. Where the carrier has no reasonable means of checking the cargo, the carrier must state so and give grounds on the consignment note. The carrier must also specify grounds for any reservations regarding the apparent condition of the cargo.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Special Knowledge under Evidence Act s.106
Where a plaintiff proves that the quantity of goods handed over to a carrier was reduced through loss during transit, and the issue of safe custody of the cargo while being transported was a matter especially within the knowledge and control of the carrier to the exclusion of the consignor, the burden shifts to the carrier under Evidence Act s.106 to give a valid explanation for the loss.
Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Carrier's Liability for Lost Goods
Where a carrier accepts goods for transportation under a consignment note without making qualifying marks regarding quantity or condition at the point of receipt, and subsequently delivers a reduced quantity, the carrier is liable for the value of the lost goods in the absence of a valid explanation for the loss.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Breach of Contract of Carriage
A breach of contract, no matter what form it may take, always entitles the innocent party to maintain an action for damages. A party deprived of the use of money representing the value of lost goods plus profits for a considerable period is entitled to general damages for breach of contract of carriage.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (3)

  • Agrovalue Processors Impex (U) Ltd v Uganda Railways Corporation (H.C. Civil Suit No. 025 of 2005)
  • CHITTY ON CONTRACTS: The common Law Library No.2, 27th Edition, Volume II, SPECIFIC CONTRACTS, London SWEET & MAXWELL, 1994, PP 500-501 paragraphs 35-141 and 35-142
  • Cheshire & Fifoot: Law of Contract, 10th Edition: P.483

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kamagara Charles v Uganda Railways Corporation (Civil Suit No.846 of 2005) (Civil Suit No.846 of 2005) [2009] UGHC 4 (5 February 2009)
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.