Wakilii

Luwero Green acres Ltd v Marubeni Corporation (Civil Appeal 19 of 1995)

Supreme Court · [1997] UGSC 9 · 1997 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second appeal to the Supreme Court from a High Court decision sitting as first appellate court over a Chief Magistrate's judgment
Decision
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside and the Chief Magistrate's judgment restored

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 Supreme Court held that the first appellate judge erred by relying on the affidavit supporting the application for leave to appear and defend, which is not evidence in the suit itself. On the evidence the supply contract for poles was oral, not written, so section 90 of the Evidence Act was wrongly invoked. The respondent, having received the 2525 poles and altered them by drying, trimming and marking them to its requirements, had accepted them and could not retract the contract or refuse payment. The appeal was allowed, the High Court judgment set aside, and the Chief Magistrate's judgment confirmed.

Outcome

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside and the Chief Magistrate's judgment restored

Facts

The appellant supplied wooden poles to the respondent. By 13 March 1993 the appellant had delivered 2525 poles, and the respondent had paid shs 42,925,000, representing 85% of the price at shs 20,000 per pole, leaving a 15% retention of shs 7,575,000 unpaid. The respondent disputed the claim, arguing that only 2300 poles met its specifications. The poles were supplied green; the respondent dried, trimmed and marked them with number plates, which on its own witness's admission meant they complied with the respondent's specifications and had been accepted. There was no written agreement; the dealings were oral. The Chief Magistrate gave judgment for the appellant. On appeal the High Court allowed the respondent's appeal and set aside the Chief Magistrate's judgment, relying in part on the affidavit filed in support of the application for leave to appear and defend.

Issues

  1. Whether the first appellate judge discharged his duty to re-appraise the lower court record and reach his own conclusions.
  2. Whether the affidavit accompanying an application for leave to appear and defend could be relied on as evidence in the suit itself.
  3. Whether the contract between the parties was written, so that section 90 of the Evidence Act applied.
  4. Whether the respondent, having received and altered the supplied poles, could refuse to pay for all of them.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs here and in the courts below.
  • Judgment and order of the High Court on appeal set aside.
  • Substituted with an order dismissing the appeal to the High Court and confirming the judgment and orders of the Chief Magistrate.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Duty of First Appellate Court to Re-evaluate Evidence
A first appellate court must reconsider and re-evaluate the evidence on record and reach its own conclusions, bearing in mind that it did not see the witnesses testify; merely reading the lower court record without re-appraising it is an error of law.
Civil Procedure — Summary Procedure — Affidavit Supporting Leave to Defend Not Evidence in the Suit
An affidavit sworn in support of an application for leave to appear and defend a suit under summary procedure remains on the record but is in no circumstances evidence in the case itself; a court errs in law by relying on it to determine the merits of the suit.
Evidence — Documentary Evidence — Section 90 Evidence Act Confined to Written Contracts
Section 90 of the Evidence Act, which excludes evidence other than the document to prove the terms of a contract reduced to writing, applies only where the contract has been reduced to writing; it cannot be invoked where the contract between the parties is oral.
Contract Law — Acceptance — Conduct Altering Goods Constitutes Acceptance
Where a buyer receives goods and alters their state to suit its own requirements, it thereby accepts the goods and completes the contract, and cannot afterwards retract the contract or refuse to pay for the goods supplied.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (4)

  • R v Pandya (1957) EA 336
  • Selle v Associated Motor Boat Co (1968) EA 123
  • James Nsibambi v Lovinsa Nankya (1980) HCB 81
  • Ephraiu Ongoru Odong and Anor v Francls BlneAa DonRe C.A. No. f0/1987 (UISC) unreported

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.

Luwero Green acres Ltd v Marubeni Corporation (Civil Appeal 19 of 1995) [1997] UGSC 9 (5 February 1997)
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.