Wakilii

Rolltex International Forex Burueau Ltd v Haba Group (U) Ltd (HCCS 219 of 2012)

High Court · [2015] UGCOMMC 105 · 2015 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for breach of contract, negligence, and vicarious liability. Heard ex parte after defendant withdrew representation and failed to appear.
Decision
Judgment entered for the Plaintiff. Defendant liable for the stolen sum, general damages, interest, and costs. Defendant's counterclaim for rent arrears dismissed.

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 High Court held that an oral tenancy agreement existed between the parties, under which the Defendant undertook to provide night security for the premises. The Defendant was vicariously liable for the negligence or complicity of its security guards, through whom burglars gained access to the main entrance and broke into the Plaintiff's Forex bureau using welding equipment. The Defendant owed a duty of care under the law of tort to protect tenant property from theft. Judgment was entered for the Plaintiff for the full amount stolen plus general damages and interest at 19% per annum.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the Plaintiff. Defendant liable for the stolen sum, general damages, interest, and costs. Defendant's counterclaim for rent arrears dismissed.

Facts

The Plaintiff operated a Forex bureau as a tenant in premises managed by the Defendant for over eight years under an oral tenancy agreement. The Defendant undertook to provide night security, deploying guards and locking the main entrance after business hours while retaining the keys. On 27 March 2012, burglars broke into the Plaintiff's Forex bureau at night and stole Uganda shillings 188,484,786/= from a safe. Police investigations revealed that the thieves gained entry through the main entrance without breaking it (constructive entry) and used gas welding equipment to break the bureau's front door and safe. Two security guards employed by the Defendant—Kabagambe Edward (a private guard) and Wanyama Robert (from Bluewater Security)—were on duty that night. Both fled the scene but were later arrested and charged with breaking in, theft, and neglect to prevent a felony. The Defendant did not participate in the hearing after its counsel withdrew.

Issues

  1. Whether there was an agreement (oral tenancy contract) between the parties.
  2. Whether the Defendant breached the contract to provide security services leading to the break-in of the Plaintiff's Forex bureau.
  3. Whether the Defendant's employees were negligent in the course of their duties and if so whether the Defendant is vicariously liable.
  4. Whether the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff the sum of Uganda shillings 188,484,786/= that was stolen as a result of the Defendant's negligence.
  5. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Judgment for the Plaintiff against the Defendant.
  • The Plaintiff is awarded Uganda shillings 188,484,786/= as compensation for money stolen.
  • The Plaintiff is awarded Uganda shillings 10,000,000/= as general damages.
  • The Plaintiff is awarded interest at 19% per annum on the principal sum from April 2010 to the date of judgment.
  • The Plaintiff is awarded interest at 19% per annum on the aggregate sum from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the Plaintiff.
  • The Defendant's counterclaim dismissed with costs under Order 17 rule 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Formation — Oral Agreement — Implied Terms in Tenancy
An oral tenancy agreement is enforceable by law, and where no written agreement is produced, the Registration of Titles Act implies covenants in the tenancy, including the tenant's duty to pay rent and the landlord's right to receive it. Terms regarding security arrangements can also be implied from the conduct of the parties over the course of the relationship.
Evidence — Estoppel — Equitable Estoppel — Representation and Reliance
Under section 114 of the Evidence Act and the doctrine of equitable estoppel, where one party by declaration, act, or omission intentionally causes another to believe a thing to be true and to act upon that belief, the representor is estopped from denying the truth of that representation. A landlord who represents that night security will be provided and on which the tenant relies cannot later deny the existence of such an undertaking.
Tort Law — Negligence — Duty of Care — Bailment — Landlord's Duty to Protect Tenant Property
Where a landlord undertakes to secure premises by locking the building and deploying security guards at night, a duty of care arises under the law of tort, independent of any contractual obligation, to protect tenant property from theft. The landlord becomes in the position of a bailee of goods on the premises and must take reasonable care to keep them safe.
Tort Law — Vicarious Liability — Master and Servant — Liability for Acts of Security Guards
A master is vicariously liable for the torts of his servants committed in the course of employment. Where security guards employed by a landlord either negligently fail to prevent a burglary or collaborate with thieves, the landlord is liable for the resulting loss to the tenant. It is immaterial whether the guards were directly employed or recruited through a third-party security company—the landlord remains responsible.
Tort Law — Negligence — Standard of Care — Burden of Proof on Bailee
Where a person takes charge of goods or premises for reward or pursuant to an undertaking to protect them, he must take reasonable care to keep them safe. If loss or damage occurs while the goods are in his possession, the burden is on him to show that the loss occurred without neglect, default, or misconduct on his part or that of his servants to whom he delegated the duty.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Breach of Duty — Inconvenience and Business Disruption
In addition to compensation for direct pecuniary loss caused by negligence or breach of duty, a plaintiff is entitled to general damages for inconvenience, business disruption, and consequential loss arising naturally from the breach. General damages serve as pecuniary compensation for loss that cannot be precisely quantified.
Damages & Quantum — Interest — Compensatory Interest — Rate of Interest on Judgment Sum
Under section 26(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, the court may award interest at a reasonable rate on a judgment sum from the date of suit to the date of judgment, and further interest from judgment until payment in full. The rate should reflect the profit the plaintiff might have made if he had had use of the money, or conversely the loss suffered by deprivation of it. The purpose is compensatory and fulfils the principle of restitutio in integrum.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (16)

  • Chamute Agencies Company Ltd v Mbale District Administration (HCCS No. 24 of 1996)
  • Tiger Night Guard Services (U) Ltd v Matthew Odoki Opoka and Company Limited [1978] HCB 156
  • Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon [1976] 2 All ER 3
  • Ronald Kasibante v Shell Uganda Limited [2008] ULR 690
  • Nakana Trading Company Ltd v Coffee Marketing Board (1994) 1 KALR 15
  • Kafumbe Mukasa v Attorney General [1984] HCB 33
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
  • Muwonge v Attorney General [1967] EA 17
  • Cross, Tetley & Co. Ltd v Calterall [1926] 1 KB 488
  • John Nagenda v Sabena Belgian World Airlines [1992] 1 KALR 13
  • Hadley v Baxendale 156 ER
  • Morris v C.W. Martin and Sons Ltd [1956] 2 All ER 725
  • Jackson v Mayfair Window Cleaning Co Ltd [1952] 1 All ER 215
  • Chesworth v Farrar and Another [1966] 2 All ER 107
  • Riches v Westminster Bank Ltd [1947] 1 All ER 469
  • Tate & Lyle Food and Distribution Ltd v Greater London Council and another [1981] 3 All ER 716

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rolltex International Forex Burueau Ltd v Haba Group (U) Ltd (HCCS 219 of 2012) [2015] UGCommC 105 (17 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.