Wakilii

Maersk Uganda Ltd v First Merchant International Ltd (Civil Suit No. 143 of 2009)

High Court · [2011] UGCOMMC 98 · 2011 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil suit for recovery of money on dishonoured cheques and return of containers, proceeding ex parte after defendant's counsel withdrew
Decision
Plaintiff awarded full relief: payment on dishonoured cheques, damages for detention, and return of containers.

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 4 (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 4 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations steady — 4 citing cases on record, 3 in the most recent three data years. 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

Court held defendant liable on seven dishonoured cheques totalling US$63,787 plus interest. Defendant ordered to pay damages for detention of 43 containers at US$10 per container per day from November 2009 to judgment, and to return the containers immediately. Counterclaim dismissed for want of prosecution.

Outcome

Plaintiff awarded full relief: payment on dishonoured cheques, damages for detention, and return of containers.

Facts

Plaintiff supplied shipping containers to defendant for export business between October 2006 and March 2007, and defendant issued seven cheques totalling US$63,787 for freight and demurrage charges. All cheques were dishonoured with remarks "refer to drawer". Defendant admitted possession of 45 containers in an email dated 19 March 2007 but refused to return them despite demand. An earlier suit (HCCS 105 of 2008) resulted in a consent judgment for return of two containers only. Defendant's counsel withdrew from conduct of the suit citing inability to contact the client. Court proceeded ex parte after advertisement in newspapers and defendant's non-appearance.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant issued bouncing cheques to the plaintiff.
  2. Whether the defendant is detaining containers belonging to the plaintiff.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay plaintiff US$63,787 in lieu of dishonoured cheques.
  • Interest at 18% per annum on US$63,787 from March 2007 to date of judgment.
  • Interest at 14% per annum on decreed sum from date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Defendant to pay damages for detention of 43 containers at US$10 per container per day from 10 November 2009 to date of judgment.
  • Defendant ordered to hand over 43 containers listed in Exhibit P8 (serial numbers 3-45) immediately upon service of judgment.
  • Additional damages of US$10 per container per day if containers not handed over within one week of service.
  • Plaintiff to serve order on defendant within one week from date of judgment.
  • Counterclaim dismissed for want of prosecution.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Bills of Exchange — Dishonoured Cheques — Liability of Drawer
A cheque is a bill of exchange payable on demand and constitutes prima facie evidence of the debt represented by the sum printed on it. A bill of exchange is to be treated as cash and the holder is entitled in the ordinary way to judgment when it is dishonoured. The debt is only discharged when the bill is honoured.
Bills of Exchange — Cause of Action — Time of Accrual
The cause of action on a dishonoured cheque arises when the cheque is duly presented for payment and payment is refused or cannot be obtained.
Bills of Exchange — Cross-claims — No Defence to Payment
Where a defendant is sued on a dishonoured cheque, a counterclaim or cross-claim for damages does not constitute a defence to the claim on the cheque. The holder is entitled to judgment and the defendant must raise such cross-claims in a separate action.
Detinue — Essential Elements — Right to Immediate Possession
To succeed in detinue, the plaintiff must show that he had a right to immediate possession of the property at the time of commencing the action, arising out of an absolute or special property in it, and that the defendant wrongfully detained the property after demand.
Detinue — Assessment of Damages — Commencement Date
Where a defendant denies possession of goods in the written statement of defence, the defendant is deemed to have refused to return the goods from the date of filing of the written statement of defence, and damages for detinue run from that date.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (9)

  • Naris Byarugaba v Shivam M.K.D Ltd [1997] HCB 71
  • Kotecha v Mohammad [2002] 1 EA 112
  • Redfox Bureau De Change v Anke Alemayehu and Another [1997-2001] UCLR 359
  • Sembule Investments Ltd v Uganda Baati Ltd (MA 0664 of 2009)
  • James Lamont and Company Limited v Hyland Limited [1950] 1 KB 585
  • Brown, Shipley and Company Limited v Alicia Hosiery Limited [1966] Rep 668
  • Quick Cargo Handling services Ltd vs. Iron and Steel Wares Ltd Civil Suit No. 328 of 2002
  • Khalid Walusimbi v Jamil Kaaya and AG [1993] 1 KALR 20
  • Sajan Singh v Sardara Ali [1960] 1 All ER 269

Cases citing this judgment (4)

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.

Maersk Uganda Ltd v First Merchant International Ltd (Civil Suit No. 143 of 2009) [2011] UGCommC 98 (22 September 2011)
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.