Mbale Exporters & Importers Ltd v Ibero(u) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 84 of 2005)

Observed later treatment

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 allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant had delivered the coffee to the respondent's premises in accordance with the contract and that the respondent, having accepted possession of the goods through its servants, became a gratuitous bailee owing a duty of care. The court found the respondent grossly negligent in the disappearance of the lorry and coffee under its custody, and that authority to receive goods was established through the vicarious liability of its servants. Late delivery did not excuse liability as the respondent never repudiated the contract on that ground. The court awarded the value of the coffee, general damages, interest and costs.

Outcome

Appeal allowed; lower court judgment set aside; respondent ordered to pay the value of the coffee, general damages, interest and costs.

Facts

The appellant supplied coffee to farmers and delivered it to exporters. The respondent bought, part-processed and exported coffee. Under two contracts dated 3 December 1999, the appellant undertook to deliver 650 bags of coffee to the respondent. On Sunday 19 December 1999, the appellant's trailer arrived at the respondent's Kampala premises. The respondent's security guards, recognising the appellant as a regular supplier, allowed the trailer into the yard to await Monday's opening of business. That night the loaded trailer was stolen and the empty trailer later recovered in Jinja. The respondent's premises were guarded by its own staff and Group Four Security guards, and monitored by CCTV, yet the lorry disappeared and two Group Four guards on duty vanished. The respondent initially acknowledged the theft and threatened to hold the appellant or Group Four liable, but later denied ever receiving any coffee, contending delivery was not taken by an authorised officer.

Issues

1. Whether the appellant delivered the 650 bags of coffee to the respondent in accordance with the contract.
2. Whether the lorry and coffee were parked at the respondent's premises with the respondent's consent or sanction.
3. Whether the respondent owed the appellant a duty of care as a bailee of the goods.
4. Whether the theft of the lorry and coffee resulted from the negligence of the respondent's servants.
5. Whether the respondent is liable to pay the damages claimed by the appellant.
6. Whether the trial judge erred in framing and deciding an issue not agreed at the scheduling conference.

Orders

• Appeal allowed.
• Judgment and orders of the lower court set aside.
• Respondent to pay the appellant US$84,206.9016 from date of filing the suit till payment in full.
• Respondent to pay general damages of UGX 5,000,000 with interest of 20% from date of judgment till payment in full.
• Interest of 13% per annum on the value of the coffee from date of filing the suit till payment in full.
• Costs of the suit in the Court of Appeal and the High Court to the appellant.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (2)

• Sale of Goods Act
• Rules of the Court of Appeal r.30

Cases cited (2)

• Muwonge vs. Attorney General 1967 EA 17
• United Garments Industry LTD Civil Suit No.1520 of 1975

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

• DFCU Bank(U) Ltd v Ms Ndibazza & Anor (Civil Suit No. 80 of 2012) followed

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