Wakilii

Lubega and Anor v Uganda Railways Corporation (Civil Suit No.719 of 2002)

High Court · [2004] UGHC 35 · 2004 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for damages for breach of carriage contract
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff with damages and costs

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (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 2 times 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 court held that Uganda Railways Corporation was liable for breach of contract of carriage where it failed to deliver goods shipped by the plaintiffs. One of two containers arrived completely empty at the defendant's goods shed in Kampala. The court found the defendant negligent in accepting to transport goods when the container was empty, or failing to safeguard goods in its custody. The plaintiff was awarded the full value of missing goods, freight charges, tax element, and a 25% profit margin.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff with damages and costs

Facts

In 2002, the plaintiffs imported ten containers of Tiger Head batteries via Dar es Salaam harbour and contracted the defendant to transport them by rail to Kampala. Two containers were shipped, each declared to contain 1,100 cartons of batteries with a total weight of 59,000 kg. Upon arrival at the defendant's goods shed in Kampala on 10 October 2002, the plaintiffs conducted a verification exercise with URC and URA officials. One container was delivered intact with all goods present. The second container was found to be completely empty. The plaintiffs had already paid customs taxes of UGX 32,079,737 for both containers. Evidence conflicted on whether the seals had been tampered with. The defendant's witnesses claimed the seals were intact, while a police report indicated tampering and negligence on the part of security. The missing goods were valued at USD 39,494.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant is liable for the missing goods.
  2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the remedies sought.

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the plaintiff against the defendant for USD 40,895 being the value of the goods, freight and profit margin.
  • Interest on the above sum at 15% per annum from the date of breach until payment in full, calculated on the Uganda Shillings equivalent.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Carriage of Goods — Common Carrier — Liability for Non-Delivery
A common carrier that fails to deliver goods to the consignee is in breach of the contract of carriage, regardless of whether the goods were never loaded or went missing during transit.
Carriage of Goods — Breach — Burden of Proof
Where a carrier accepts goods for carriage and fails to deliver them, the carrier is liable for breach unless it raises and proves an exception to liability.
Breach of Contract — Measure of Damages — Loss of Profit
In assessing damages for breach of a carriage contract, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the full value of the goods, freight charges, tax paid, and a reasonable profit margin calculated on a modest standard.
Remoteness of Damage — Hadley v Baxendale Principle
A court must give atonement for all loss and damage that reasonably arises or could be contemplated as usually likely to arise from the breach of contract.

Cases cited (2)

  • Julian Mbahile v Transocean (U) Ltd (1985) HCB 82
  • Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

Lubega and Anor v Uganda Railways Corporation (Civil Suit No.719 of 2002) [2004] UGHC 35 (15 November 2004)
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.