Monday v Attorney General (Civil Appeal 16 of 2010)

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 Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal wrongly found the contract for the hire of the appellant's vehicle to State House discharged by frustration. Frustration had not been pleaded by the respondent, no evidence proved it, and mere damage to the vehicle was not destruction of the subject matter. The onus of proving frustration lay on the respondent, who failed to discharge it. As a bailee, State House retained constructive custody until the vehicle was taken from police by a third party on 29 January 2000, and was liable for the lost hire income until that date. The appeal was allowed, the Court of Appeal judgment set aside, and the trial court's award modified.

Outcome

Appeal allowed; Court of Appeal judgment set aside; trial court's award modified — appellant awarded hire income from 1 April 1998 to 29 January 2000 discounted by 40%, with interest at 8% per annum; prayer for return of the vehicle declined.

Facts

The appellant, trading as Country Wide Contractors, hired his Toyota Land Cruiser to State House on a self-drive basis at UGX 200,000 per day, effective 7 March 1998. On 31 March 1998 the vehicle was involved in an accident while moving in a presidential convoy and was towed to Masaka Police Station for safe custody. On 29 January 2000 the police released it to Paul Kaggwa, who claimed ownership because he still held its log book following an earlier sale to the appellant whose cheque had been dishonoured. The appellant sued for hire charges, return of the vehicle or its value, general damages, interest and costs. The High Court gave judgment for the appellant but discounted the award; the Court of Appeal reversed, holding the contract frustrated by the accident. The respondent had not pleaded frustration and led no evidence of how the accident occurred or that the vehicle was destroyed, the only evidence being that it was damaged and was later kept at Kaggwa's home.

Issues

1. Whether the defence of frustration was pleaded by the respondent in the Written Statement of Defence or the memorandum of appeal.
2. Whether there was evidence that the contract of hire was discharged by frustration.
3. Whether the hired vehicle was destroyed so as to frustrate the contract.
4. On which party the burden of proving frustration lay.
5. Whether State House retained actual or constructive custody of the vehicle after the accident.
6. Whether the appellant failed to mitigate his loss.

Orders

• Appeal allowed and the judgment of the Court of Appeal set aside.
• Appellant awarded UGX 200,000 per day from 1 April 1998 to 29 January 2000 as lost income, the total to be discounted by 40%.
• Interest on the above amount at 8% per annum from the date of filing the suit until payment in full.
• The appellant's prayer for the return of the vehicle declined.
• Costs of the appeal and costs in the two courts below awarded to the appellant.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (3)

• Evidence Act s.101(1)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules r.86(1)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules r.102(a)

Cases cited (5)

• Interfreight Forwarders (U) Ltd v EADB [1990-1994] EA 117
• Taylor v Caldwell [1861-73] All ER 26
• Musisi Divia v Sietco (Civil Appeal No. 24 of 1993)
• Howard & Co (Africa) Ltd v Burton [1964] EA 540
• Charles Douglas Cullen v Persram & Hansraj [1962] EA 159

Cases citing this judgment (10)

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.

• Somochem Uganda Limited v Namanve Industries Limited and Another (Civil Suit No. 3 of 2024) followed
• Liberty Life Assurance (U) Ltd v Joseryn Kyosimire and Another (Civil Appeal 7 of 2024)
• Lubega v Lubega and 5 Others (Civil Appeal No. 49 of 2019)
• Monitor Publication Limited and 4 Others v Bigirimana (Civil Appeal No. 170 of 2022)
• Mushabe Kafuredi and 2 others vs George Kajuna and 2 others (Revision Application No. 93 of 2005)
• Mushabe and 2 Others v Kajuna and 2 Others (Revision Application No. 93 of 2005)
• Magezi v Commissioner Land Registration (Misc Cause No. 172 of 2017)
• Revoluntionary ADS and Designs Ltd v Board of Trustees of Nakivbo Stadium (Civil Appeal No. 131 of 2013) followed
• Naku & 2 Ors v Commissioner Land Registration & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 064 of 2010)
• Monday Eliab v Attorney General [2011] UGSC 12

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