Namugerwa Moses v Bank of Uganda (Civil Suit No. 1525 of 2000)

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.

Facts

The plaintiff, a German resident, sent his BMW motor vehicle to Uganda in late 1997 through Abbas Mawanda of Greenland Bank. The vehicle was cleared and registered in the plaintiff's name. The vehicle was kept in the basement of Greenland Towers. In January 2000, the plaintiff was informed the car had been auctioned. He returned to Uganda and claimed his vehicle from Bank of Uganda and its agents Deloitte and Touche, who initially doubted his ownership. After presenting the registration book and lodging a caveat, he located the vehicle at a garage on Dewinton Road. The car had been repainted, stripped of parts, and rendered mechanically unsound. The plaintiff was required to pay UGX 5,585,661 for clearing and registration costs before the vehicle was released to him on 10 May 2000. The plaintiff alleged the vehicle had been converted and used by Mr. Nair, Managing Director of Greenland Bank appointed by the defendant. The plaintiff claimed loss of income from hiring the vehicle and loss of employment contract in Germany.

Issues

1. Whether or not the plaintiff, acting by his agent, obtained the consent of Greenland Towers to park his vehicle in the basement of Greenland Towers.
2. Whether or not Greenland Towers was under any duty to take care of the vehicle.
3. Whether or not Mr. Nair, in the exercise of his duties, converted the plaintiff's car and actually used it as his official car.
4. Whether or not Mr. Nair was an employee/servant of the defendant after the closure of Greenland Bank.
5. Whether or not the defendant is liable for the acts of Mr. Nair, relating to the alleged conversion and use of the plaintiff's vehicle, before and/or after the closure of Greenland Bank.
6. Whether or not it was the responsibility of the defendant to keep the vehicle under good care and in a sound mechanical condition.
7. Whether or not at the time the vehicle was handed over by the defendant to the plaintiff it was in a sound mechanical condition.
8. Whether or not the plaintiff has suffered any loss or damage.
9. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for.

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