Wakilii

Musoke v Musuga and Another (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1992)

Supreme Court · [1992] UGSC 34 · 1992 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Uganda at Kampala (Kato J.) in H.C.C.S. No. 1355 of 1984, on the measure of damages for conversion and on costs.
Decision
Appeal partly allowed: the damages award is affirmed and the costs orders are varied so that the first respondent bears the second respondent's costs and the appellant recovers his costs of the appeal.

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

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.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Supreme Court held that the measure of damages in conversion is the value of the converted goods at the date of conversion, not at the date of judgment. The exception allowing recovery of an increase in market value between conversion and judgment applies only where that special loss is explicitly pleaded and proved, which the appellant had not done; grounds one and two were rejected and the trial judge's award affirmed (ground three was abandoned). On the costs ground, the Court held the second respondent was not liable for the conversion, but that the appellant was reasonable in suing him; since the first respondent had placed the second respondent in possession, it should bear his costs. Appeal allowed in part.

Outcome

Appeal partly allowed: the damages award is affirmed and the costs orders are varied so that the first respondent bears the second respondent's costs and the appellant recovers his costs of the appeal.

Facts

From 1973 the plaintiff rented a building comprising a shop and sleeping quarters on Plot 18, Main Road, Masaka, from an Asian owner. After the owner left Uganda, the Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (first defendant) took over the property from January 1975, and the plaintiff paid rent to it. In January 1984, while the plaintiff was away in Jinja, officials of the first defendant, accompanied by police, entered the premises, removed the plaintiff's goods and stock-in-trade, locked the rooms, re-allocated the shop and took some property away. The shop was given to the second defendant, a government servant. On returning, the plaintiff found the shop locked and obtained no satisfactory explanation, then sued for conversion, claiming the value of his goods, loss of earnings and a declaration of tenancy. The trial court found the first defendant liable for conversion and awarded special damages valued as at the date of conversion, dismissed the claim against the second defendant with costs, and rejected the tenancy and loss-of-earnings claims. The plaintiff appealed on the measure of damages and on the award of the second defendant's costs against him.

Issues

  1. Whether, in assessing damages for the tort of conversion, the property is to be valued as at the date of conversion or as at the date of judgment.
  2. Whether the damages awarded for the value of the converted goods were inadequate and based on a wrong principle.
  3. Whether the trial judge erred in finding that the appellant had not proved loss of earnings.
  4. Whether the second respondent was responsible for the loss, and whether the trial judge erred in awarding the second respondent's costs against the appellant.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed in part.
  • The judgment of the lower court is not set aside in so far as it concerns the measure of damages.
  • The order as to costs is varied: the costs of the second respondent, both of this appeal and in the court below, are to be paid by the first respondent.
  • The appellant is awarded his costs of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Tort Law — Conversion — Measure of Damages — Relevant Date for Valuation
The measure of damages in conversion is the value of the converted goods at the date of conversion.
Tort Law — Conversion — Increase in Value Between Conversion and Judgment
A plaintiff may recover the increased market value of converted goods arising between conversion and judgment only where that special loss is explicitly pleaded and proved by evidence to be the direct result of the defendant's conduct.
Damages & Quantum — Special Damages — Requirement of Strict Proof
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved; a plaintiff's unsupported valuation, lacking corroborating witnesses or documentary evidence, may be accepted as to the quantity of goods lost but rejected as to their value.
Civil Procedure — Joinder of Defendants — Order 1 rule 1 CPR
Where a plaintiff cannot reasonably know which of two defendants took or detained his property and a common question of law or fact arises, he may properly join both defendants jointly and severally.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Judicial Discretion — Departure from Costs Following the Event
Although a successful defendant is normally entitled to costs, where the plaintiff was reasonably driven to sue that defendant by the conduct of a co-defendant, the court may order the co-defendant who caused the situation to pay the successful defendant's costs.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (8)

  • Caxton v. Sunderland (1932) A.C. 178, 192
  • Sachs v. Miklos (1948) 2 K.B. 23; (1948) All E.R.
  • ... v. Alderton (1945) 1 All E.R. 581
  • Munro v. Willmott (1948) 2 All E.R.
  • Solloway v. McLaughlin (1937) A.C.
  • Henderson v. Williams (1894) 1 Q.B. 521, 532
  • Hillesden Securities Ltd vs. Ryjack Ltd (1983) 2 All E.R. 184
  • Daniel Sempa Mbabali V. W.K. Kiza & Ors. (1985) H.C.B. 46

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Musoke v Musuga and Another (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1992) [1992] UGSC 34 (30 June 1992)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.