Macdowell Limited v Tampa Engineering Consultants Limited (Civil Appeal No. 180 of 2018)

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.

Holding

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court of Uganda had jurisdiction to entertain the suit because the contract was signed in Kampala and the parties expressly agreed that Ugandan law would govern it, notwithstanding that performance occurred in South Sudan. However, the trial judge erred in applying Order 17 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules to close the defence and deliver judgment after the appellant's advocate abruptly withdrew, without allowing the appellant time to retain new counsel or ordering service of a hearing notice. This denied the appellant a fair hearing under Article 28 of the Constitution. The appeal succeeded and the suit was remitted to the trial court.

Outcome

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside and suit remitted to the trial court to complete hearing of the appellant's case

Facts

On 15 August 2008, the respondent contracted with the appellant to rehabilitate a road in South Sudan for UGX 1,600,000,000. The appellant advanced UGX 700 million and later paid a further UGX 527,547,669 to repair equipment. The contract was signed in Kampala and provided that Ugandan law and currency governed it. After about 50 km was built, the respondent stopped work over the Christmas break in December 2008. On returning in January 2009, its staff found the appellant had taken over the camp and equipment. Settlement efforts failed, and the respondent sued to recover outstanding amounts, release equipment, and for damages. After the respondent closed its case, the appellant's advocate withdrew citing loss of contact with his client. The trial judge proceeded under Order 17 rule 4 CPR, ordered written submissions, and delivered judgment against the appellant awarding substantial special, general and exemplary damages, interest and costs.

Issues

1. Whether the High Court of Uganda had jurisdiction to entertain a suit concerning detention of goods that allegedly occurred in South Sudan.
2. Whether the trial judge erred in proceeding under Order 17 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules to decide the suit without summoning the defendant after its advocate withdrew from the case.

Orders

• The judgment of the High Court in Civil Suit No. 224 of 2010 is set aside.
• Civil Suit No. 224 of 2010 is remitted to the trial court to complete the hearing of the appellant's case before judgment is delivered.
• The principles of law in Beatrice Odongo and Noah Ochota v Tampa Engineering Consultants (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2020) remain valid, but any execution proceedings and orders pursuant to the set-aside judgment cannot proceed pending the outcome of the remitted suit.
• Each party will bear its own costs of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (11)

• Judicature Act s.14
• Civil Procedure Act s.14
• Civil Procedure Act s.15
• Civil Procedure Act s.98
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 17 rule 4
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 5 rule 18
• Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations S.I 267-2 reg.3(2)(a)
• Constitution of the Republic of Uganda Article 28
• Constitution of the Republic of Uganda Article 44(c)
• Constitution of the Republic of Uganda Article 126(2)(e)
• Companies Act 2012 s.20

Cases cited (2)

• Amin Rasheed Shipping Corporation v Kuwait Insurance Co [1984] AC 50
• Beatrice Odongo and Noah Ochota v Tampa Engineering Consultants (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2020)

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