Wakilii

Mackenzie Maritime (U) Limited v Agof Logistics Limited (Civil Suit No. 943 of 2020)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 352 · 2025 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of contractual debt arising from clearing and forwarding services
Decision
Defendant ordered to pay USD 18,738.20 plus general damages of UGX 25,000,000 with interest

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 High Court Commercial Division held that the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff for unpaid clearing and forwarding services. The court found that services incidental to clearing and forwarding (including port charges, demurrage, and detention fees) formed part of the implied contract between the parties. The court assessed each invoice individually, determining validity based on supporting documentation and apportioning liability for delays between both parties. The plaintiff was awarded USD 18,738.20 plus general damages of UGX 25,000,000, with interest at 24% per annum on the principal sum from the date of filing suit and 6% per annum on general damages from judgment.

Outcome

Defendant ordered to pay USD 18,738.20 plus general damages of UGX 25,000,000 with interest

Facts

From May 2015 to July 2017, the plaintiff provided clearing and forwarding services to the defendant for various consignments from Mombasa to Kampala. The plaintiff issued ten invoices totaling USD 46,061.43 for services including clearing charges, transportation, demurrage, detention, port charges, and other incidental costs. The defendant disputed the invoices, contending that some were fully paid, wrongly raised, or lacked supporting documentation. The defendant also argued that delays causing additional charges were caused by the plaintiff, not the defendant. The plaintiff's parent company, Mackenzie Maritime (EA) Limited, acted as the plaintiff's agent in Kenya for clearing goods in Mombasa, after which the plaintiff completed the transactions in Uganda. The parties' contractual relationship was not reduced to writing but was implied from their conduct, email correspondence, and course of dealing.

Issues

  1. Whether all the invoices, the basis of which the Plaintiff claims, are valid?
  2. Whether any delays in the clearance were caused by the default of the Defendant?
  3. Whether the claims that were settled between the Defendant and Mackenzie Maritime (EA) Ltd were reproduced and are being claimed by the Plaintiff?
  4. Whether the Defendant is indebted to the Plaintiff?
  5. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • It is declared that the Defendant is indebted to the Plaintiff in the sum of USD 18,738.20.
  • The Defendant is ordered to pay USD 18,738.20 to the Plaintiff.
  • The Plaintiff is awarded general damages of UGX 25,000,000.
  • The Plaintiff is awarded interest at 24% per annum on USD 18,738.20 from the date of filing suit until payment in full.
  • The Plaintiff is awarded interest at 6% per annum on UGX 25,000,000 from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • The Plaintiff is awarded half the costs of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Implied Terms — Incidental Services in Clearing and Forwarding Contracts
Where parties engage in a clearing and forwarding contract, services incidental to the clearing and transportation of goods (including payment of port charges, demurrage, detention fees, shipping line charges, and warehousing rent) form part of the implied terms of the contract, even where not expressly stipulated, where such services are necessary to fulfill the primary contractual obligation and the client is aware of and acquiesces to such charges.
Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Burden of Proof of Payment
Once a creditor establishes a prima facie case of indebtedness by proving the existence of a contractual obligation and non-payment, the burden shifts to the debtor to prove that the debt has been extinguished by payment. The debtor must adduce cogent evidence of payment, and mere assertions or incomplete payment records are insufficient to discharge this burden.
Evidence — Documentary Evidence — Validity of Invoices
An invoice is valid and enforceable where it is supported by corresponding documentation showing the services rendered or payments made on behalf of the client, and where the client was aware of the charges and did not protest at the time. Lack of supporting documentation or material particulars renders an invoice invalid and unenforceable.
Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Apportionment of Liability for Delay
Where delays in the performance of a clearing and forwarding contract result in additional charges such as demurrage and detention fees, liability for such charges must be apportioned based on which party caused the delay. A party is liable for delays caused by late provision of documentation, failure to provide trucks or drivers as agreed, or failure to return empty containers within the stipulated time. Where both parties contribute to the delay, liability is apportioned accordingly.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Cause of Action
A plaint discloses a cause of action where it establishes that the plaintiff enjoyed a right, that the right has been violated, and that the defendant is liable. In determining whether a cause of action exists, the court considers only the plaint and its annexures. A claim for recovery of contractual debt supported by invoices and evidence of services rendered discloses a cause of action and is not frivolous or vexatious.
Evidence — Estoppel — Requirements for Application of Doctrine
For the doctrine of estoppel to apply, there must be a clear, definite, unambiguous and unequivocal representation by one party, reliance by the other party on that representation, and detriment suffered as a result. Where a representation is disputed and not relied upon by the other party, the doctrine of estoppel does not apply.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (23)

  • Uganda Telecom Ltd v ZTE Corporation (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2017)
  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Limited v West End Distributors Limited [1969] EA 696
  • R v Ajit Singh s/o Vir Singh [1957] EA 822
  • Tororo Cement Co. Ltd v Frokina International Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2001)
  • Kapeka Coffee Works Ltd v NPART (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2000)
  • Ainomugisho Winifred & Ors v Fatuma Dusto Nalumansi & Ors (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 2084 of 2016)
  • Africa Polysack Industries Limited v Sugar and Allied Industries Limited (Civil Suit No. 174 of 2016)
  • William Kasozi v DFCU Bank Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 1326 of 2000)
  • Ropani International Ltd v SDV Transami Uganda Ltd (Civil Suit No. 318 of 2011)
  • Sebuliba Busuulwa v Co-operative Bank Ltd [1982] HCB 129
  • Hon. Justice Anup Singh Choudry v Mohinder Singh Channa and Another (Civil Suit No. 335 of 2014)
  • Godfrey Ssebanakita v Fuelex (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 04 of 2016)
  • Kitgum Co-operative Savings and Credit Society Limited v Okonya John Calvin (Civil Appeal No. 85 of 2018)
  • Pamrone Investments Limited v Bank of Africa Uganda Limited (Civil Suit No. 322 of 2015)
  • Nakawa Trading Co. Ltd v Coffee Marketing Board (Civil Suit No. 137 of 1991)
  • Uganda Farmers Meat Co. Limited v Fresh Cuts Uganda Limited (Civil Suit No. 942 of 2020)
  • DFCU Bank Limited v John Magezi (High Court Civil Suit No. 547 of 2017)
  • Kabandize John Baptist and 21 Others v Kampala Capital City Authority (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 36 of 2016)
  • Takiya Kashwahiri and Another v Kajungu Denis (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 85 of 2011)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Deo Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
  • Milly Masembe v Sugar Corporation (U) Ltd and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2000)
  • Mohanlal Kakubhai Radia v Warid Telecom Uganda Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 224 of 2011)
  • Uganda Development Bank v Muganga Construction Co. Ltd [1981] HCB 35

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mackenzie Maritime (U) Limited v Agof Logistics Limited (Civil Suit No. 943 of 2020) [2025] UGCommC 352 (9 September 2025)
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.