Moding v Kabanda (Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2015)

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 High Court allowed the appeal and held that the respondent seller wrongly impounded the vehicle after delivering it to the appellant buyer. Under the Sale of Goods Act, an unpaid seller loses the right of lien once possession is delivered to the buyer unless the agreement specifically preserves that right. No written agreement existed here. The impounding was unlawful and entitled the appellant to rescind the contract. The court ordered refund of the purchase price paid, special damages for repair costs, general damages, and interest.

Outcome

Appeal allowed, lower court judgment set aside, judgment entered for appellant with refund of purchase price, special and general damages, interest, and costs

Facts

On 15 February 2012, the respondent sold motor vehicle UAK 691Q to the appellant for UGX 11,500,000. The appellant paid UGX 8,000,000, leaving a balance of UGX 3,500,000. The respondent delivered the vehicle but retained the logbook pending full payment. The appellant put the vehicle up for sale before paying the balance. The respondent then impounded the vehicle with police assistance; the police released it to the respondent, viewing the matter as civil. The respondent sued for the balance. The appellant filed a defence and counterclaim seeking refund of the UGX 8,000,000 paid and UGX 1,615,000 spent on repairs. The trial magistrate found for the respondent, ordering the appellant to pay the balance plus parking and security fees. The appellant appealed.

Issues

1. Whether there was a breach of contract by the defendant/appellant.
2. Whether the plaintiff/respondent was entitled to impound the vehicle.
3. Whether the trial magistrate erred in awarding parking fees not pleaded in the plaint.
4. Whether the appellant was entitled to rescind the contract and recover monies paid.

Orders

• Appeal allowed.
• Judgment of the Magistrate's Court set aside.
• The appellant rightly rescinded the contract.
• The respondent's impounding of the motor vehicle was illegal.
• The respondent was not entitled to parking fees.
• The respondent to pay the appellant UGX 8,000,000 as money deposited.
• The respondent to pay the appellant UGX 1,615,000 as special damages.
• The respondent to pay UGX 3,000,000 as general damages.
• Interest on the refund and special damages at 18% per annum from 27 September 2013 till payment in full.
• Interest on general damages at 6% per annum from date of judgment till payment in full.
• Respondent to pay costs here and below.
• The registration book on file to be returned to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (3)

• Sale of Goods Act s.38
• Sale of Goods Act s.39
• Sale of Goods Act s.42

Cases cited (3)

• Nsubuga v Attorney General (HCCS No. 13 of 1998)
• Uganda Revenue Authority v Mabosi (SCCA No. 1 of 1996)
• Harbutts Plasticine Ltd v Wyne Tank & Pump Co Ltd [1970] 1 Ch 447

Cases citing this judgment (3)

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.

• Heritage oil and Gas Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal 3 of 2021)
• Mulindwa v Sheroz Auto Trading Co. Limited (Civil Appeal 65 of 2022)
• Nyende David v KPI Security Services Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2015)

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