Wakilii

Lubega v Lubega and 5 Others (Civil Appeal No. 49 of 2019)

Court of Appeal · [2023] UGCA 115 · 2023 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from High Court (Commercial Division) judgment holding the appellant liable for unlawful shop closure and conversion of goods
Decision
Appeal partly allowed; exemplary damages reduced from UGX 350 million to UGX 150 million, general damages upheld, appellant remains personally liable

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 grounds 1–5, holding the appellant personally liable for the unlawful closure of the respondents' shop and conversion of their goods. Neither corporate personality nor privity of contract insulated him, since an agent remains personally liable as a joint tortfeasor for torts he commits. Matters not pleaded at trial could not be raised on appeal, and his expunged evidence left the respondents' proof unrebutted. The Court upheld general damages of UGX 150 million but partially allowed ground 6, reducing exemplary damages from UGX 350 million to UGX 150 million as an erroneous estimate. Respondents were awarded three-quarters of the costs of appeal.

Outcome

Appeal partly allowed; exemplary damages reduced from UGX 350 million to UGX 150 million, general damages upheld, appellant remains personally liable

Facts

Christopher Saazi was a tenant on Plot 6 Nakivubo Road, Kampala. He sublet part of the premises to Teopista Nabbale, who sold her space as goodwill to the 1st respondent for UGX 30,000,000. The 1st respondent let out part of the space to the other respondents, who operated a shop called Jesus Cares Enterprises dealing in women's clothes and goods. The building was sold to Tesco Industries Limited in June 2014. On 27 July 2014 the respondents found their shop locked without notice. They were informed the appellant, as new owner, had closed it and demanded increased rent of UGX 5,000,000 per month with six months in advance. The respondents could not afford this. The shop remained locked, and in February 2015 the appellant's manager, with police, removed the merchandise to an unknown location. The old building was later demolished and a new building erected. The respondents sued for declarations that the closure and confiscation were unlawful and for damages.

Issues

  1. Whether the appellant had locus standi to fault the trial court's evaluation of evidence despite not adducing evidence of his own.
  2. Whether the trial judge erred in holding the appellant personally liable for the unlawful closure of the shop and conversion of the respondents' goods.
  3. Whether the doctrines of corporate personality and privity of contract shielded the appellant from personal liability in tort.
  4. Whether the appellant required a special certificate to levy distress for rent.
  5. Whether the awards of general damages and exemplary damages were based on wrong principles or were excessive.

Orders

  • Grounds 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the appeal are dismissed.
  • Ground 6 partially succeeds.
  • The trial court's award of UGX 150,000,000 as general damages with interest at 23% per annum from 24 January 2019 until full payment is upheld.
  • The award of exemplary damages is reduced from UGX 350,000,000 to UGX 150,000,000, with interest at 23% per annum from 24 January 2019 until full payment.
  • Three quarters (3/4) of the costs before this court are awarded to the respondents.
  • The trial court's orders as to costs in the High Court are upheld.

Rules and key headnotes

Appeals — Locus Standi — Right to Challenge Evaluation of Evidence Despite Failure to Adduce Evidence at Trial
A party's right to appeal is a creature of statute and is not conditional upon that party having adduced evidence at trial; failure to adduce evidence does not by itself deny a party the right to fault the trial court's evaluation of the evidence.
Pleadings — Matters Not Pleaded at Trial Cannot Be Raised on Appeal
A party is barred from raising on appeal matters of mixed law and fact which were neither pleaded in their defence nor supported by evidence led at trial; submissions alone are inadequate in the absence of pleadings and supporting evidence.
Joint Tortfeasors — Personal Liability of Agent — Conversion and Unlawful Detention of Goods
An agent who personally commits a tort such as conversion or unlawful detention of goods is jointly and severally liable with the principal as a joint tortfeasor; acting on behalf of a corporate principal does not insulate the agent from personal liability in tort.
Corporate Personality — Separate Legal Entity Does Not Shield Agent from Personal Tortious Liability
The principle that a company is a separate legal person from its directors and agents does not shield an agent or officer from personal liability in tort for wrongs he personally commits, even where he acted for the company.
General Damages — Award Permissible Notwithstanding Failure to Prove Special Damages
Failure to prove special damages does not bar an award of general damages; where a plaintiff has clearly suffered loss, the court retains a duty to fairly compensate through general damages.
Exemplary Damages — Availability Against Private Defendant Motivated by Profit — Assessment of Quantum
Exemplary damages may be awarded against a private defendant whose conduct was calculated to make a profit exceeding the compensation payable to the plaintiff; however the quantum must be assessed on established principles, and an appellate court will reduce an award that is so high as to be an entirely erroneous estimate.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (27)

  • Giuliano v Claudio Casadio (Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2014)
  • Edirisa Karenge Musiwa v Paul Mtambo (Civil Suit No. 682 of 2002)
  • Tweedle Vs. Atkinson 1861 1 B & 393
  • Mwangi v Braeburn Ltd CA Kenya Case No. 12 of 2004
  • Gottish Food Processors M Ltd & Pan world Co. v Egypt Air Corporation T/A Egyptiar Uganda SCCA No. 15 of 2001
  • Yoka Rubber Industries v Diamond Trust Properties (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2013)
  • Salmon v Salmon & Co. Ltd 1897 AC 22
  • Bank of Uganda v Betty Tinkamanyire (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2007)
  • G.W Lutaya v Hassam Shami Raujj & 2 Others (Civil Suit No. 415 of 2005)
  • Obong & Anor v Municipal Council of Kisumu [1971] EA 91
  • Kamya v Makumbi Kamya & Another (Election Petition Appeal No. 109 of 2016)
  • John Kisukye v Satish Chandra R. Shah & Others (Civil Suit No. 723 of 2007)
  • Attorney General Vs Shah (No.4) [1971] EA 50
  • Mufekanga Vs Equator Growers (U) Ltd [1995-1998] 2 EA 219
  • Fredrick Zaabwe v Orient Bank Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006)
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Geresom Rwabogo v Tereza Kyatifu (Civil Appeal No. 55 of 2009)
  • Interfreight Forwarders (U) Ltd v East African Development Bank (Civil Appeal No. 33 of 1992)
  • Monday v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2010)
  • Butterworth Vs. Butterworth & Englefield [1920] P 126
  • Rookes Vs. Barnard [1964] ALL ER 367
  • Cassell Co Ltd Vs. Broome (1972) 1 All E.R. 807
  • Esso Standard (U) Ltd v Semu Amanu Opio (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1993)
  • Bank of Uganda Vs Masaba & Others [1999] 1 EA 2
  • Uganda Breweries Ltd v Uganda Railways Corporation (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2001)
  • Ahmed Ibrahim Bholm v Car and General Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2002)
  • Brinsmead v. Harrison [1892] 2 Q.B.D. 511

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Lubega v Lubega and 5 Others (Civil Appeal No. 49 of 2019) [2023] UGCA 115 (15 February 2023)
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.