Wakilii

Power & City Contractors Ltd v Ltl Projects(PVT) Ltd (Civil Suit No. 24 of 2012)

High Court · [2015] UGHCCD 72 · 2015 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for tort and damages arising from detention of chattels
Decision
Judgment for plaintiff with general damages, interest, costs, and order for immediate return of detained property

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

Held: the defendant is vicariously liable for trespass to goods where its employee directed police to impound the plaintiff's vehicles and compressor without lawful justification. The detention was not justified by alleged breach of a consortium agreement, which does not attract criminal liability. The plaintiff has locus standi to sue as the beneficial owner. An earlier settlement agreement did not cover recovery of impounded chattels. Special damages for lost hire income rejected as speculative, but general damages of UGX 80 million awarded for deprivation of use and depreciation over almost four years.

Outcome

Judgment for plaintiff with general damages, interest, costs, and order for immediate return of detained property

Facts

The plaintiff company owned a Pajero UAD 614Y, self-loader lorry UAJ 137R, tipper UAJ 266B, and a compressor. In November 2011, the defendant's employee, acting on behalf of a consortium comprising plaintiff, defendant and another company, wrote to Kaberamaido police requesting detention of the plaintiff's property on the ground that the plaintiff's workers had not been paid. The police impounded the property and continued to detain it at the defendant's request. Despite the plaintiff's efforts to secure release, the chattels remained in police custody throughout the proceedings. The plaintiff claimed it had entered into a contract in March 2012 to hire out the chattels for 180 days but could not perform. The defendant argued that a settlement agreement entered in June 2012 released it from all claims, but that agreement concerned a different suit and did not address recovery of the impounded chattels.

Issues

  1. Whether the 2nd defendant caused the impounding of the plaintiff's chattels.
  2. Whether the 1st defendant is vicariously liable to the plaintiff for the actions of the 2nd defendant.
  3. Whether the plaintiff has the locus to sue for recovery of the suit vehicles.
  4. Whether the parties reached a settlement on all outstanding claims against each other.
  5. What remedies are available to the plaintiff.

Orders

  • The plaintiff is awarded 80 million shillings as general damages.
  • Interest at 17% per annum from date of judgment till payment in full.
  • The three vehicles (Pajero UAD 614Y; self loader lorry UAJ 137R; Tipper 266B) and compressor in the custody of Kaberamaido police station be handed to the plaintiff's representative immediately and without any delay.
  • Costs of the suit to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Trespass to Goods — Vicarious Liability for Employee's Acts
An employer is vicariously liable for trespass to goods committed by its employee where the employee acts in the course of employment, even if the act is done contrary to orders, or deliberately, wantonly, negligently, criminally, or for the employee's own benefit, provided what was done is merely a manner of carrying out what the employee was employed to do.
Trespass to Goods — Elements of the Tort
Trespass to goods is committed when a person directly interferes with goods in another's possession, does so intentionally or carelessly, and has no lawful justification or excuse. Requesting police to detain another's property without lawful excuse and failing to instruct release constitutes intentional interference without lawful justification.
Trespass to Goods — Breach of Contract Does Not Justify Detention
Alleged breach of a consortium agreement by one party does not attract criminal liability and does not justify another consortium member ordering police to detain the breaching party's property. Self-help detention without lawful authority constitutes trespass to goods.
Locus Standi — Beneficial Owner's Right to Sue
A beneficial owner of chattels has locus standi to sue for their recovery and for damages arising from their wrongful detention, even where the chattels are in police custody.
Settlement Agreements — Scope of Release Clauses
A settlement agreement releasing parties from 'all existing claims' does not preclude a party from pursuing a claim for recovery of chattels impounded before the settlement where that specific claim was not part of the settled suit and the agreement did not expressly address recovery of the impounded property.
Special Damages — Foreseeability and Control
Special damages for loss of hire income will not be awarded where it was speculative for the plaintiff to enter into a hire agreement for chattels not in its control, and where the defendant could not have foreseen that the plaintiff would commit property over which it had no control.
General Damages for Trespass to Goods — Prolonged Deprivation and Depreciation
General damages for trespass to goods should compensate for deprivation of use for commercial purposes, depreciation due to exposure and non-use, and the arbitrary and high-handed nature of the defendant's conduct. Award of UGX 80 million appropriate for detention of vehicles and compressor for almost four years.

Cases cited (3)

  • Crane Bank Ltd v Sr. Francis Theresa Okondo (Civil Appeal No. 120 of 2010)
  • Muwonge v Attorney General [1967] EA 17
  • Lutaaya v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2005)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Power & City Contractors Ltd v Ltl Projects(PVT) Ltd (Civil Suit No. 24 of 2012) [2015] UGHCCD 72 (11 September 2015)
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.