Munobe vs Commissioner Customs URA (Civil Appeal No. 211 of 2017)

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 dismissed the appeal, holding that the respondent (URA Commissioner of Customs) owed no duty of care to the appellant importer for damage to his motor vehicles. The vehicles were already damaged with missing parts when received, having been stored at Kenfreight, a licensed Internal Container Depot, from November 2008 until September 2010 before being moved to the customs warehouse. Under the East African Community Customs Management Act and Regulations, the Commissioner acts only as a supervisor of Internal Container Depots while owners retain control. As there was no duty of care, there could be no negligence, and any vandalism could not be attributed to the respondent. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; High Court decision upheld with each party bearing its own costs

Facts

In October 2008 the appellant imported six motor vehicle units, which were involved in an accident en route from Mombasa to Kampala and were damaged. The units were received on 5 November 2008 and stored at Kenfreight (U) Ltd, a licensed Internal Container Depot. When the container was opened, the appellant's wife, a URA officer, a Kenfreight official, a clearing agent and a security guard were present, all noting the damage occasioned to the vehicles, which was recorded in inspection reports and photographs. The vehicles remained at Kenfreight until 29 September 2010, when they were moved to the respondent's customs warehouse at Nakawa following a consent decree in an earlier suit concerning tax assessment. The appellant alleged the vehicles were extensively vandalised while in the respondent's custody and sued for a declaration of unlawful conduct, compensation for loss of business, general damages, interest and costs. The trial Judge held the respondent owed no duty of care and could not be held liable. The appellant appealed.

Issues

1. Whether the trial Judge erred in holding that there was no vandalism to the appellant's six motor vehicles attributable to the respondent.
2. Whether the respondent owed the appellant a duty of care in respect of the motor vehicles from November 2008.
3. Whether the respondent was liable in damages or any of the remedies sought by the appellant.
4. Whether the trial Judge failed to properly evaluate the evidence on record.

Orders

• Appeal dismissed.
• Decision and orders of the trial Court upheld.
• Each party to bear its own costs of the appeal.
• Trial Judge's order on costs in the court below upheld.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (11)

• East African Community Customs Management Act 2004 s.2(1)
• East African Community Customs Management Act 2004 s.12(1)(i)
• East African Community Customs Management Act 2004 s.14(2)
• East African Community Customs Management Act 2004 s.14(3)(a)
• East African Community Customs Management Act 2004 s.14(4)
• East African Community Customs Management Act 2004 s.16(1)(a)
• East African Community Customs Management Act 2004 s.17
• East African Community Customs Management Regulations 2010 reg.2
• East African Community Customs Management Regulations 2010 reg.57(3)
• East African Community Customs Management Regulations 2010 reg.60
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.30(1)(a)

Cases cited (6)

• Pandya v R [1957] EA 336
• Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
• Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562
• Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605
• Souza Manyindo v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 70 of 2003)
• Thomas vs. Quartermane

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.

• Munobe v The Commissioner Customs, URA (Civil Appeal 12 of 2022)

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