Motor Marts Uganda Limited v Lugazi General Contractors Limited (Civil Appeal 27 of 1997)

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 held that a bailee who received a lorry for repair and failed to return it was liable in detinue, and that on the pleadings and evidence the trial court had rightly found the lorry disposed of. Where a chattel is not produced, its value is assessed at the highest possible value as at the date of judgment. However, the Court found it improper to award general damages equivalent to the price of a brand-new lorry. It reduced the award from Shs.80 million to Shs.65 million, comprising Shs.54 million for the value of the lorry and Shs.11 million as general damages. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; damages award varied downward from Shs.80 million to Shs.65 million

Facts

On or about 15 December 1987, the respondent delivered its Bedford J5 lorry (Registration No. UXM 893) together with spares to the appellant's workshop for repairs, evidenced by Job Card No.1436. The appellant accepted the lorry and agreed to repair it, but made slow progress as it was also assembling tractors for the government. The respondent's agent checked repeatedly but the lorry was not repaired. In October 1990 the appellant instructed court brokers (M/S Eddie & Sophie Enterprises) to return the lorry on payment of amounts due or to auction it to recover the outstanding amount. When the respondent learned of the intended sale and raised the matter, the appellant's agent instead framed the respondent for fraud; police investigated and cleared the respondent. The appellant never returned the lorry. In its defence the appellant denied ever receiving or possessing the lorry, yet in its memorandum of appeal claimed the lorry was still in its possession and had not been sold.

Issues

1. Whether the trial judge erred in finding that the lorry had been sold when the appellant denied any sale.
2. Whether the respondent was entitled to an award of general damages of Shs.80 million and whether that quantum was proved.
3. Whether the trial judge erred in relying on evidence that was neither tendered nor pleaded to arrive at the quantum of damages.

Orders

• Appeal dismissed.
• General damages award reduced from Shs.80 million to Shs.65 million, comprising Shs.54 million as the value of the lorry and Shs.11 million as general damages.
• Costs to the respondent in this court and in the court below.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (1)

• Evidence Act s.100

Cases cited (5)

• Rosenthal v Alderton and Sons Ltd [1946] KB 374
• General & Finance Facilities Ltd vs Cooks Cars (Romford) Ltd
• Esso Standard Ltd v. S.I Amanuodio SCC No.3/93 [1993] VI KALR 59
• Kibimba Rice Co Ltd v Umar Salim (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1983)
• Salmond and Heuston on Torts, 18th Edition at page 526

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.

• Prof. Syed Huq v Islamic University in Kampala (Civil Appeal 47 of 1995)

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