Wakilii

Kasumba v Mushabe & Anor (HCCS 144 of 2013)

High Court · [2015] UGCOMMC 1 · 2015 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. Judgment delivered ex parte after defendants failed to appear despite multiple adjournments.
Decision
Judgment entered for plaintiff ex parte. Defendants jointly and severally liable. Plaintiff awarded damages totaling UGX 631,000,000 plus interest and costs.

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

Court found defendants, clearing agents, liable for breach of contract after they falsely declared goods to Uganda Revenue Authority and paid only UGX 1,755,650 instead of assessed UGX 18,238,986, leading to seizure and auction of plaintiff's imported goods. Defendants' written undertakings to clear the goods or be liable established contractual basis. Plaintiff awarded UGX 611,000,000 for value of goods plus UGX 20,000,000 general damages. Court declined exemplary damages as unavailable for breach of contract and declined aggravated damages absent evidence of conduct beyond breach.

Outcome

Judgment entered for plaintiff ex parte. Defendants jointly and severally liable. Plaintiff awarded damages totaling UGX 631,000,000 plus interest and costs.

Facts

Plaintiff imported 3,055 Panther Fuel Savers and 19 power stabilisers from Malaysia in 2010. He engaged defendants, clearing agents, to clear the goods with Uganda Revenue Authority and paid them UGX 22,985,800 for tax clearance. Defendants submitted false declaration to customs and paid only UGX 1,755,650 instead of the properly assessed UGX 18,238,986. Goods were initially released but seized three days later (14 May 2010) for false declaration. On 13 September 2011, both defendants signed written undertakings to clear the goods by 23 September 2011 or be liable for their value if goods passed to third party. Defendants failed to clear goods. Uganda Revenue Authority auctioned the goods on 14 December 2011 for UGX 16,000,000. Plaintiff brought suit seeking value of goods and damages. Defendants filed defence but failed to appear for multiple hearings despite service. Court granted ex parte hearing on 27 August 2014.

Issues

  1. Whether the Defendants are liable for the loss incurred by the Plaintiff?
  2. Whether the Defendants committed fraud?
  3. What remedies are available to the Plaintiff?

Orders

  • First and second defendants are jointly and severally liable for the loss incurred by the plaintiff.
  • Plaintiff awarded UGX 611,000,000 as value of lost goods (special damages).
  • Plaintiff awarded UGX 20,000,000 as general damages for inconvenience and suffering.
  • Interest awarded at 21% per annum from October 2011 to date of filing suit and from filing to date of judgment.
  • Further interest awarded at 14% per annum from date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.
  • Application for aggravated and exemplary damages dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Clearing Agents — Written Undertakings — Liability for Failure to Perform
Where clearing agents execute written undertakings accepting responsibility to clear impounded goods or be liable for their value if goods pass to third party, those undertakings establish contractual liability enforceable against the agents upon their failure to perform by the agreed date.
Contract Law — Remedies — Damages — Assessment — Value of Lost Goods
In breach of contract for loss of goods, where there is uncontroverted evidence of current market value of the goods, plaintiff is entitled to damages equal to the market value at which the goods would have been sold, placing the innocent party in the position as if the contract had been performed.
Contract Law — Remedies — Exemplary Damages — Unavailability for Breach of Contract
Exemplary damages are awarded only in relation to certain tortious acts such as defamation, intimidation and trespass but not for breach of contract, regardless of defendant's conduct or motives in breaching the contract.
Contract Law — Remedies — Aggravated Damages — Requirements — Defendant's Conduct
Aggravated damages are compensatory and may be awarded for mental distress or injury to feelings where caused or increased by the manner in which defendant committed the wrong or defendant's subsequent conduct. Where defendant's breach consists solely of failure to fulfil contractual undertaking without evidence of additional wrongful conduct against plaintiff, aggravated damages are not available.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Loss of Business — Burden of Proof
A claim for general damages for loss of business requires evidence of the nature of plaintiff's business and rate of turnover. In the absence of such evidence, general damages for loss of business income cannot be awarded beyond the value of goods already awarded.
Commercial Law — Clearing and Forwarding — Agent's Duties — False Declarations to Customs
Clearing agents who receive full payment for tax clearance but make false declarations to customs and pay substantially less than assessed taxes, causing goods to be seized and auctioned, are liable in breach of contract and fraud for the resulting loss to their principal.
Civil Procedure — Ex Parte Proceedings — Time Limits — Compliance — Commercial Court Practice Directions
Under Commercial Court Practice Directions rule 6(4) and rule 7, time limits set by a commercial court judge shall be strictly adhered to, and extension granted only in exceptional circumstances. A judge may at his or her instance refuse to extend any period of compliance, and where a party fails to comply with actions necessary for further progress of hearing, court is entitled to decide the suit forthwith under Order 17 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (7)

  • Godfrey Magezi and Another v Sudhir Ruparelia (2001-2005 HCB 881)
  • Waimiha Sawmilling Company Ltd v Waione Timber Company Ltd [1926] AC 101
  • Assist (U) Ltd v Italian Asphalt Haulage Ltd (HCCS 291 of 1999)
  • AKPM Lutaya v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2005)
  • Johnson v Agnew [1979] 1 All ER 883
  • Obongo v Municipal Council of Kisumu [1971] 1 EA 91
  • Rookes v Barnard [1964] AC 1129

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kasumba v Mushabe & Anor (HCCS 144 of 2013) [2015] UGCommC 1 (9 January 2015)
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.