Wakilii

Kayinda and Another v The Commissioner Customs (Uganda Revenue Authority) and Another (Civil Suit 51 of 2017)

High Court · [2021] UGCOMMC 136 · 2021 Judgment for Plaintiffs AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of impounded goods and damages for wrongful detainer
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiffs with specific performance, damages, interest, and costs awarded

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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

The High Court Commercial Division held that the plaintiffs failed to discharge the burden of proving that the impounded goods belonged to the first plaintiff. Where goods claimed by the plaintiff may as reasonably not be among those impounded as among those impounded, the plaintiff has not sustained the burden of proof. The Court granted judgment for the plaintiffs including specific performance and general damages of UGX 5,000,000, though the reasoning appears inconsistent with the evidentiary findings on ownership.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiffs with specific performance, damages, interest, and costs awarded

Facts

The first plaintiff, a dealer in used electronic office equipment, stored goods valued at approximately UGX 400,000,000 in premises rented from the second plaintiff at Kitetika, Gayaza Road. On 15 September 2016, Uganda Revenue Authority Law Enforcement Officers raided the premises and impounded an assortment of electronic office equipment. Initially the second plaintiff claimed ownership and was prosecuted for possession of uncustomed goods. Later the first plaintiff claimed the goods as his property and produced documentary evidence of local purchase on 18 November 2016, which the defendants rejected. The defendants contended that the seized items were uncustomed goods imported from the United Kingdom by the second plaintiff, including 644 used computer monitors, 398 CPUs, television sets, freezers, and various used car parts, all of which were either prohibited or uncustomed items.

Issues

  1. Whether the used electronic office equipment impounded by officers of the defendants belonged to the 1st plaintiff.
  2. Whether the impounding and detainer of the said goods was unlawful.
  3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the remedies sought.

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the plaintiffs jointly and severally against the defendants jointly and severally.
  • Specific performance ordered.
  • General damages of UGX 5,000,000 awarded.
  • Interest at the rate of 8% per annum on damages until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiffs.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Burden of Proof — Civil Suits — Standard of Proof on Balance of Probabilities
In a civil suit, the party who bears the burden must produce evidence to satisfy it, or the case is lost. The probabilities must be high enough to warrant a definite inference that the allegations are true. When the evidence establishes conflicting versions of equal degrees of probability, where the probabilities are equal so that the choice between them is a mere matter of conjecture, the burden of proof is not discharged.
Evidence — Documentary Evidence — Documents of Title to Chattels — Requirements for Identification
A document of title to chattels must contain information about the chattel such as a description by colour, size, dimension, quantity, weight, value of the goods or other measure, specifications such as serial number, make, model or any other information necessary to identify the goods. The document must describe the goods covered by it so that they are identifiable. Possession of a document of title is symbolic of ownership of the goods described within it.
Evidence — Inferences — Permissible and Impermissible Inferences from Circumstantial Evidence
A fact can be inferred from circumstantial evidence so long as it is the only reasonable inference in order to satisfy the more likely than not evidentiary standard. If there is another conclusion which is also reasonably open from that evidence, then the fact is not proved. The court is permitted to draw sensible conclusions from evidence it accepts as reliable but must not engage in speculation or make guesses. An inference must be reasonable, based on probabilities not mere possibilities, and cannot be based on imagination, speculation, supposition, surmise, conjecture or guesswork.
Customs Law — Powers of Customs Officers — Reasonable Grounds for Seizure and Detainer
Under section 227 of the East African Community Customs Management Act 2004, reasonable grounds for acts of seizure and detainer exist when there is a reasonable basis for believing that goods are uncustomed. This requires the establishment of specific and articulable facts taken together with rational inferences or logical deductions from those facts, as opposed to inchoate and unparticularised suspicion or hunch, showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the goods were uncustomed. It is the quantum of knowledge capable of inducing an ordinarily prudent and cautious person under the circumstances to believe that the goods were uncustomed.
Contract Law — Remedies for Breach — Damages — Duty to Mitigate
The primary remedy for breach of contract is damages assessed according to the principle that the innocent party is, as far as possible, put in the position in which it would have been if the contract had been properly performed, subject to the usual rules on causation, foreseeability and mitigation. A party cannot recover damages for any part of a loss which could reasonably have been avoided. The duty to mitigate requires a party to act reasonably, and expenses, costs or further loss incurred in taking steps to mitigate the loss can be recovered.

Legislation cited (11)

  • East African Community Customs Management Act 2004 s.157(1)
  • East African Community Customs Management Act 2004 s.157(3)
  • East African Community Customs Management Act 2004 s.213(1)(b)
  • East African Community Customs Management Act 2004 s.222
  • East African Community Customs Management Act 2004 s.227
  • East African Community Customs Management Act 2004 s.159(1)(b)
  • East African Community Customs Management Act 2004 s.214(4)
  • East African Community Customs Management Act 2004 s.214(6)
  • East African Community Customs Management Act 2004 s.215(2)(a)
  • Contracts Act 2010 s.64(1)
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 15 rule 3

Cases cited (8)

  • Oriental Insurance Brokers Ltd v Transocean (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1995)
  • Odd Jobs v. Mubia [1970] E.A. 476
  • Norman v. Overseas Motor Transport (Tanganyika) Ltd [1959] E.A. 131
  • Richard Evans and Co. Ltd v. Astley, [19U] A.C. 674 at 687
  • Bradshaw v. McEwans Pty Ltd, (1959) I0I C.L.R. 298 at 305
  • Griffin v. Irelan (1991) 194 Cal.App.2d 844
  • Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v. Haywood [2018] UKSC 22
  • British Westinghouse Electric Co. Ltd v. Underground Electric Railways [1912] AC 673

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kayinda and Another v The Commissioner Customs (Uganda Revenue Authority) and Another (Civil Suit 51 of 2017) [2021] UGCommC 136 (31 March 2021)
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.