Wakilii

Lochab Transporters Co. Limited v S.W.T Tanners Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2011)

Court of Appeal · [2020] UGCA 2028 · 2020 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First appeal from a High Court judgment awarding damages for loss of goods in transit
Decision
Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment and damages awards upheld

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

The Court of Appeal dismissed the carrier's appeal against a judgment awarding damages for goods lost in transit. It held that the consignment note was not a contract and did not limit liability, particularly as the exemption clause was never brought to the consignor's attention. The appellant, having accepted the consignment without exercising any right of refusal, was a common carrier prima facie strictly liable for loss occurring in transit. The evidence showed the sealed container was tampered with while in the appellant's custody. Finding the trial Judge exercised her discretion judiciously in assessing special and general damages, the Court upheld the awards and ordered the appellant to pay costs.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment and damages awards upheld

Facts

On 22 January 2002, the respondent contracted the appellant to transport ten pallets of wet salted cattle hides from Kampala, Uganda to Mombasa Port, Kenya. The goods were loaded onto the appellant's truck and sealed at the respondent's premises in the presence of representatives of both parties. When the container arrived at Mombasa and was opened, seven of the ten pallets were found missing and the container had been partly filled with black volcanic ash. A survey report found the container weighed 16.74MT instead of the loaded 22.5MT, and that the bolts and rivets holding the locking bars had been severed, welded back and repainted, indicating tampering during transit. The respondent sued for the value of the lost goods, general damages, interest and costs. The appellant claimed a consignment note contained an exemption clause absolving it of liability. The High Court found no special contract limited liability, that the appellant was a common carrier, that the goods were lost in its custody, and awarded USD 16,537.50 special damages and USD 10,000 general damages.

Issues

  1. Whether there was a legally binding special contract of carriage limiting the appellant's liability.
  2. Whether the appellant was a common carrier subject to common law rules applicable to common carriers.
  3. Whether the respondent's goods were lost while in the custody of the appellant's servants.
  4. Whether the trial Judge erred in awarding special and general damages.

Orders

  • The appeal fails.
  • The judgment and orders of the lower Court are upheld.
  • The appellant shall pay the costs of the appeal here and in the lower Court.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Carriage of Goods — Consignment Note Distinguished from Contract
A consignment note is a document by which consignor and consignee prove receipt of property; it is an alternative to a bill of lading but is not a contract or negotiable instrument and does not by itself limit a carrier's liability.
Contract Law — Exemption Clauses — Notice of Terms
An exemption clause on the reverse of a consignment note does not bind a party where the clause was never explained or brought to that party's attention, particularly where only photocopies of the front were supplied and the clause was introduced after the goods had left the consignor's premises.
Commercial Law — Carriage of Goods — Definition of Common Carrier
A carrier who accepts a consignment without exercising a reserved right to reject offers not sufficiently attractive is a common carrier, and a discretionary clause to refuse offensive, dangerous or restricted goods does not convert a common carrier into a private carrier.
Commercial Law — Common Carrier — Strict Liability for Loss in Transit
A common carrier is prima facie strictly liable for all loss or damage occurring during transit, and to escape liability must prove the loss was caused by an act of God, enemies, inherent vice or the consignor's fault, and that no negligence contributed to the loss.
Damages & Quantum — Special Damages — Proof of Value of Lost Goods
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and proved, but proof need not always be documentary and may be established by direct evidence such as expert testimony; the correct measure of damages against a common carrier for goods entirely lost is prima facie the value of the property lost.
Damages & Quantum — Appellate Interference with Awards
An appellate court may interfere with an award of damages only where it is so inordinately high or low as to represent an entirely erroneous estimate, or where the trial Judge proceeded on a wrong principle or misapprehended the evidence in a material respect.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (10)

  • M.A Bayusuf & Sons V Reliable Freight, Civil Case 483 of 1998
  • L'Estrange V Gracoub Ltd, KB (1934) ALLER. REP 16
  • Andrews Bros Ltd V Singer & Co. Ltd (1934) 1 KB 17
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Byabalema and Others V Uganda Transport Company (1990-1994) EA 59 (SC)
  • B.A.T V Express Transport (1968) EA 171
  • Gapco (U) Ltd v A.S. Transporters (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2004)
  • Haji Asuman Mutekanga v Equator Growers (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1995)
  • Storms v. Hutchinson [1905] AC 515
  • Southern Engineering Company Vs Musingi Mutia [1985] KLR 730

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Lochab Transporters Co. Limited v S.W.T Tanners Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2011) [2020] UGCA 2028 (27 February 2020)
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.