Wakilii

P&O Nedlloyd (U) Ltd v Tesco International Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 86 04)

Court of Appeal · [2006] UGCA 60 · 2006 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from a High Court judgment finding the appellant carrier in breach of contract of carriage
Decision
Appeal allowed; trial court's award of damages set aside

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 Court of Appeal allowed the carrier's appeal. The respondent claimed two of ten shipped containers arrived empty and sought damages for breach of the contract of carriage. The court held the respondent bore the burden of proving the loss occurred while the goods remained in the appellant's control, namely before delivery at the agreed port of discharge, Dar-es-Salaam. There was no evidence the containers were empty on arrival in Dar-es-Salaam; the goods were cleared by the respondent's agent and handed to a second carrier for onward transport to Kampala, where emptiness was discovered in the appellant's absence. The trial judge erred in finding theft by the appellant before Dar-es-Salaam. The damages awarded were set aside.

Outcome

Appeal allowed; trial court's award of damages set aside

Facts

The appellant, a carrier for hire, was contracted by the respondent to ship ten 20-foot containers of batteries from China to the port of Dar-es-Salaam under a bill of lading. On arrival in Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzanian Customs affixed their own seals to the containers, which were then cleared by Altco, the respondent's clearing and forwarding agent. Altco handed all ten containers to a second carrier, Uganda Railways Corporation, for onward carriage to Kampala. On verification in Kampala, conducted in the appellant's absence, two containers were found empty. The seals on all ten containers differed from those recorded in the bill of lading but were intact on arrival in Dar-es-Salaam. The respondent sued for US$78,000 and damages, claiming the appellant interfered with or stole the goods. No evidence established that the two containers were empty when they reached Dar-es-Salaam, the agreed port of discharge.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant carrier was in breach of duty and/or breach of contract to deliver the containers safely and securely.
  2. What remedies were available to the respondent.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Damages awarded by the trial court set aside.
  • Costs awarded to the appellant both in the Court of Appeal and the court below.

Rules and key headnotes

Carriage of Goods — Carrier's Liability — Termination on Delivery at Agreed Port of Discharge
A carrier's liability for goods under a contract of carriage ends upon safe delivery at the agreed port of discharge; where the consignee's agent clears the goods and hands them to a second carrier for onward carriage, loss discovered thereafter cannot be attributed to the original carrier absent proof that it occurred before delivery.
Burden of Proof — Carriage Claims — Loss Occurring While in Carrier's Control
A claimant alleging loss of goods in transit bears the burden of proving that the loss occurred while the goods remained in the carrier's possession or control; failure to prove the goods were lost before delivery at the port of discharge defeats the claim.
Inferences from Primary Facts — Co-existing Facts
An inference cannot be readily drawn from proved primary facts where there exist other co-existing facts which weaken or destroy that inference.
Bill of Lading — Document of Title — Effect of Possession
A bill of lading is a document of title representing the goods, and possession of it places the goods at the disposal of the holder; clearance of all containers by the holder's agent indicates safe and secure delivery by the carrier.

Cases cited (2)

  • Management Training & Advisory Centre v Patrick Kakuku Ikanza (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1985)
  • London and North Western Railway Company v Richard Hudson & Sons Ltd [1920] AC 324

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

P&O Nedlloyd (U) Ltd v Tesco International Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 86 04) [2006] UGCA 60 (1 January 2006)
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.