Oriental Insurance Brokers Ltd v Transocean (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal 55 of 1995)

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

A suit is tried on issues, and although a trial court has power under Order 13 rule 5(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules to amend issues or frame additional ones at any time before decree, that power is permissive and may not be exercised arbitrarily. Where a judge wishes to determine a suit on issues not framed at trial, he must, before concluding his judgment, draw the proposed issues to the parties' attention and allow them to call evidence or address the court. The trial judge erred by introducing new issues while writing his judgment, without consulting the parties, and dismissing the plaintiff's suit on that basis, thereby prejudicing the appellant. The appeal was allowed.

Outcome

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; judgment entered for the appellant as prayed in the plaint

Facts

The appellant, an insurance broker, was appointed by the respondent on 15 November 1988 to place the respondent's fire and allied, burglary and motor insurances. On 17 June 1992 the respondent terminated the appointment. By then the respondent owed the appellant about UGX 46,126,653 in commission arising from premiums that would have passed through the appellant. The respondent disputed liability, pleading that the sums were owed to the insurers, not the broker, and that the appellant had no authority to sue for money owed to third parties. At the start of trial the parties agreed a single issue: whether the respondent owed the appellant any money and, if so, how much. Both parties led evidence and counsel addressed the court. While writing his judgment, the trial judge declined to confine himself to the agreed issue and reframed it into four issues, including whether the appellant was entitled to sue. He answered the issues against the appellant and dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff had no right to sue.

Issues

1. Whether the trial judge erred in deciding the suit on issues he framed while writing his judgment, rather than the issue the parties had agreed upon before trial.
2. Whether the trial judge erred in determining the suit on new issues he framed without first raising them with the parties to give them an opportunity to adduce further evidence or to address the court on them.

Orders

• Appeal allowed with costs to the appellant.
• Judgment and order of the High Court set aside.
• Judgment entered for the appellant as prayed in the plaint.
• Costs of the appeal and of the court below awarded to the appellant.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (4)

• Civil Procedure Rules Order 13 rule 1(5)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 13 rule 5(1)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 18 rule 4
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 18 rule 5

Cases cited (3)

• Odd Jobs v Mubia (1970) EA 476
• Rukidi v Isuru (Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1994)
• Kayondo v Co-operative Bank Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 10 of 1991)

Cases citing this judgment (13)

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.

• Veronica B. Tindyebwa and Another v Paulino Bwentungye Kavuma and Others (Civil Suit 129 of 2014)
• Ssebanakitta v Zinda and 11 Others (Civil Appeal 3 of 2023)
• Tumusiime t a Bakery Limited and Another v San Sara Agro Limited (Civil Miscellaneous Application 186 of 2022)
• Tumusiime T/a Bakery Limited and Another v San Sara Agro Limited (HCT-05-CV-MA 186 of 2022)
• Dr.Bweyale Nnalongo v Jomayi Property Consultants Limited (Civil Revision 13 of 2020)
• Kalisa and Others v Nyangire and Others (Civil Appeal No. 146 of 2013)
• Kayinda and Another v The Commissioner Customs (Uganda Revenue Authority) and Another (Civil Suit 51 of 2017)
• Palin Corporation Limited v UAP Old Mutual Insurance Limited (Civil Suit 977 of 2018)
• Nipun Bhatia & Another v Boutique Shazim Limited (Civil Appeal No. 179 of 2015)
• Sebalamu v Nalwoga (Civil Appeal 14 of 2017)
• Hwan Sung Industries Ltd vs Tajdin Hussein & 2 Ors [2009] UGSC 17
• TaJdin Hussein & 2 oers v Hwan Sung Industries Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 71 of 2003) followed
• Darlington Sakwa and Another v The Electoral Commission and Others (Constitutional Petition No. 8 of 2006)

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