Wakilii

Kendo v Umar Rizwan & Anor (Civil Suit No. 590 of 2014)

High Court · [2017] UGCOMMC 73 · 2017 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of motor vehicle and damages, proceeding ex parte after interlocutory judgment entered against defendants
Decision
First defendant liable for compensation for lost vehicle; suit against second defendant dismissed

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

Held that the first defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for loss of a hired vehicle not returned after a hire contract expired. Court awarded UGX 52,000,000 as replacement value (cost of UGX 67,000,000 less UGX 12,000,000 facilitation already paid) with interest. The plaintiff cannot simultaneously claim hire charges and compensation for loss of the same vehicle. Suit against second defendant dismissed as no written guarantee was proved.

Outcome

First defendant liable for compensation for lost vehicle; suit against second defendant dismissed

Facts

The plaintiff owned a Nissan truck UAA 354A valued at UGX 67,000,000. In December 2012, he hired it to the first defendant for 14 days to transport goods to South Sudan at UGX 857,142.8 per day (total UGX 12,000,000), which was paid. The first defendant did not return the vehicle after the hire period expired. In June 2013, the first defendant undertook in writing to return the vehicle by 25 June 2013 and deposited his passport with police as security. The plaintiff was given UGX 12,000,000 as facilitation to retrieve the vehicle from South Sudan. When the plaintiff went to South Sudan, he found the vehicle held by a third party who had a separate dispute with the first defendant, and was arrested. The vehicle was never returned. The matter proceeded ex parte after the defendants failed to file a defence.

Issues

  1. Whether the Defendants are liable for compensation of the Plaintiff's motor vehicle.
  2. Whether the Defendants are liable to pay special damages for the continued use of the Plaintiff's vehicle after the expiry of the contract at the rate of 857,142 per month from the date when the vehicle was supposed to be returned till judgment is entered.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • First defendant to pay plaintiff UGX 52,000,000 as compensation for the lorry.
  • Interest at 24% per annum on the compensation sum from August 2013 to date of judgment.
  • Interest at 19% per annum from date of judgment till payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.
  • Suit against the second defendant dismissed with no order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Hire of Goods — Bailor's Rights — Obligation to Return Goods After Hire Period
Where a bailor hires out goods to a bailee for a specified period, the bailee has an absolute obligation to return the goods at the end of the hire period. The bailee cannot escape liability by pointing to the intervention of a third party with whom the bailor had no contractual relationship. The right of possession reverts to the bailor immediately upon expiry of the hire period.
Damages & Quantum — Compensation for Loss of Goods — Simultaneous Claims for Hire and Loss
A plaintiff cannot simultaneously claim hire charges for continued use of property and compensation for total loss of the same property. Where goods have been lost under a hire contract, the appropriate remedy is compensation representing the replacement value of the goods, not ongoing hire charges.
Damages & Quantum — Interest — Restitutio in Integrum
Interest may be awarded in lieu of general damages to achieve restitutio in integrum. Under section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act, the court may order reasonable interest from the date of the cause of action until payment in full to compensate the plaintiff for being kept out of his property.
Civil Procedure — Default Proceedings — Interlocutory Judgment — Assessment of Damages vs Liquidated Demand
Where interlocutory judgment is entered under Order 9 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules for detention of goods, what remains is assessment of damages only, as liability is established by the interlocutory judgment. Where the claim includes a liquidated demand, the plaintiff is entitled to final judgment on that liquidated amount without further assessment.
Contract Law — Guarantee — Written Evidence
Where a party is sued as guarantor, liability can only be established where there is written evidence of the guarantee undertaking. Mere allegation of oral guarantee without documentary proof is insufficient to ground liability.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (14)

  • Mpandi Ivan vs. Prism Trading and Construction Co. Ltd
  • Mbaka Nguru and another v James George Rakwar [1995-1998] 1 EA 246
  • Jacob Ayiga Maruja and Anor v Simeon Obaya [2002] LLR 46
  • Alexander-Tryphon Debeniotics vs. Central Africa Company Ltd Dares-salaam High court Civil Suit No. 29 of 1996
  • Devram Manji Daltani v Danda (1949) 16 EACA 35
  • Sengendo v Attorney-General [1972] 1 EA 140
  • Uganda Baati vs. Patrick Kalema High Court, Commercial Division, Civil Suit Number 126 of 2010
  • 3WM Uganda Ltd vs. Loadwell Freight Logistics Ltd and 2 Others H.C.C.S. No. 299 of 2016
  • Namiwanda Freda vs. Messrs CorpCredit Limited H.C.C.S. No. 147 of 2015
  • Abbey Panel & Sheet Metal Co Ltd v Barson Products [1947] 2 All ER 809
  • Adjumani Services Station vs. Frederick Batte Civil Suit 345 of 2014
  • Dharamshi v Karsan [1974] 1 EA 41
  • Johnson and another v Agnew [1979] 1 All ER 883
  • Tate & Lyle Food and Distribution Ltd v Greater London Council and another [1981] 3 All ER 716

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kendo v Umar Rizwan & Anor (Civil Suit No. 590 of 2014) [2017] UGCommC 73 (5 June 2017)
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.