Wakilii

Rubaramira Geoffrey v Energo (U) Co Ltd (Civil Suit No. 036 2005)

High Court · [2013] UGHC 282 · 2013 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 and trespass
Decision
Judgment for the plaintiff with damages and costs awarded against the defendant. Third party not liable for indemnity.

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 the defendant trespassed on the plaintiff's land by excavating murram from an area outside the agreed site, thereby destroying the plaintiff's trees, vegetation, and tea garden. The court found the defendant liable for damages to the plaintiff but refused to hold the Attorney General (third party) liable for indemnity, ruling that indemnity does not cover illegal activities such as trespass committed during the defendant's frolic. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff with damages, interest, and costs.

Outcome

Judgment for the plaintiff with damages and costs awarded against the defendant. Third party not liable for indemnity.

Facts

The plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant for the supply of murram while the defendant was working on the Kyegegwa-Kyenjojo road. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant dug murram outside the agreed area, destroying his trees, vegetation, and tea garden in breach of contract. The defendant was employed by the Government of Uganda (represented by the Attorney General as third party) under a road construction contract. The plaintiff called three witnesses including an agriculturalist who testified to the destruction. The defendant called one surveyor who admitted surveying the site prior to excavation but never verified that excavation occurred at the agreed location. Payment was made for the murram extracted but the plaintiff claimed the defendant trespassed on an unagreed part of Mugo hill.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant extracted murram from the agreed site and if so whether he breached the terms of the agreement amounting to trespass.
  2. Whether the plaintiff, defendant occasioned loss, damage and injury to the plaintiff's crops and land.
  3. Whether the third party is liable to indemnify the defendant.
  4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the claims sought.
  5. What are the remedies available to the parties?

Orders

  • Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant.
  • Defendant to pay the plaintiff UGX 9,640,000 as general damages.
  • Defendant to pay the plaintiff UGX 2,645,000 as special damages.
  • Interest at 4% per annum on the special damages from date of judgment to payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.
  • Third party's claims against the defendant dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Tort Law — Trespass to Land — Excavation Beyond Agreed Area — Destruction of Vegetation
Where a party excavates material from land outside the area agreed in a contract, destroying trees and vegetation on the landowner's property, such conduct constitutes trespass even if payment was made for the material extracted from the agreed area.
Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Mitigation of Loss — Payment for Goods
Acceptance of payment for goods supplied under a contract does not bar a claim for damages arising from breach of other terms of the same contract, as the plaintiff is entitled to mitigate damage by accepting payment for what was properly supplied.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Failure to Call Material Witness
Failure to call a material witness who possesses direct knowledge of facts in issue may lead the court to infer that such witness's evidence, if called, would be adverse to the party who failed to call them.
Tort Law — Indemnity — Third Party Liability — Frolic of Servant
A third party employer is not liable to indemnify a contractor for liabilities arising from the contractor's trespass and other illegal activities committed outside the scope of the contract, as indemnity does not cover instances where the contractor acts on a frolic of his own.
Contract Law — Third Party Indemnity — Implied Conditions — Compliance with Law
An indemnity clause in a contract is subject to the implied condition that the party seeking indemnity will abide by the terms of the agreement and act within the law; trespass and illegal conduct fall outside the scope of such indemnity.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (8)

  • Oketcho Richard v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 1995)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Stephen Mabosi (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2002)
  • Mapro Ltd v Attorney General [1996] KALR 557
  • Musisi Dirisa & 3 others v Sietco (U) Ltd [1993] KALR 83
  • Yoakim Mwene Hyabene v Attorney General [1996] III KALR 23
  • Yafesi Walusimbi v Attorney General [1959] EA 223
  • Edward Kironde Kaggwa v Costapareria [1963] EA 213
  • Transami (U) Ltd v Transocean (U) Ltd & another [1994] KALR 175

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rubaramira Geoffrey v Energo (U) Co Ltd (Civil Suit No. 036_2005) [2013] UGHC 282 (13 June 2013)
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.