Wakilii

SABA GIFCO Uganda Limited v DHL Global Uganda Limited (Civil Suit 138 of 2016)

High Court · [2021] UGCOMMC 147 · 2021 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 arising from transportation and logistical services
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff with special damages of US $ 9,500, interest at 5% per annum from date of filing suit, and costs

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 held that the defendant breached the contract by failing to load/offload trucks and secure timely customs clearances within the agreed 48-hour period. The defendant bore the risk of delays in customs clearances by implication, as it had undertaken responsibility for customs clearance duty payments. The plaintiff proved US $ 9,500 in idle time charges, not the full US $ 17,756 claimed. Delays attributable to the plaintiff's failure to obtain port passes in time were not recoverable. The liquidated damages clause of US $ 250 per day was valid and not a penalty.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff with special damages of US $ 9,500, interest at 5% per annum from date of filing suit, and costs

Facts

On 9th February 2015, the defendant contracted the plaintiff to provide transportation and logistical services for consignments between Kampala and Mombasa. The contract stipulated 48 hours for loading/offloading and customs clearances, with idle charges of US $ 250 per day beyond that period. Between July and August 2015, the plaintiff's trucks experienced delays at Mombasa Port and Malaba Border crossing. The plaintiff invoiced the defendant for US $ 17,756 in idle charges. The defendant paid the principal sum for services but disputed the idle charges, contending delays were caused by the plaintiff's failure to obtain port passes and by customs authorities, not by the defendant's fault.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant's actions amount to breach of contract.
  2. Whether the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of US $ 17,756 arising from idle days spent at the ports.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the plaintiff against the defendant.
  • Special damages of US $ 9,500 awarded.
  • Interest at the rate of 5% per annum from 4th March 2016 until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Interpretation — Implied Terms — Risk Allocation
Where a contract is silent on who bears the risk of particular events, the risk associated with the performance of a contractual obligation is that of the party required to perform the obligation to the extent that it or an experienced party in a similar position ought to have foreseen such conditions.
Contract Law — Implied Terms — Customs Clearance Delays
Where a party undertakes responsibility for customs clearance duty payments under a contract, it impliedly bears the risk of delays in customs clearances occasioned by inefficiencies inherent in or failures of the system put in place by the relevant customs authority, unless the contract expressly excludes such liability.
Contract Law — Liquidated Damages — Distinction from Penalty Clauses
A liquidated damages clause represents a pre-determined amount due as compensation for failure to perform a specific task or comply with a particular obligation. It is valid unless proved to be a penalty clause, that is, disproportionately large compared to the actual damage likely to be incurred. A valid liquidated damages clause ordinarily evidences an intention that general damages cannot be claimed in addition.
Contract Law — Damages — Special Damages — Proof
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved, but strict proof does not necessarily always require documentary evidence. The plaintiff must establish the quantum of loss with sufficient certainty on the balance of probabilities.
Contract Law — Damages — Currency of Judgment — Foreign Currency
Where contracting parties have agreed on a particular foreign currency as the currency of account and payment in respect of all transactions arising under the contract, including payment of damages for breach, judgment should be given for damages in that currency to avoid one side suffering unfairly by fluctuation of the exchange rate.
Contract Law — Interest — Rate — Coerced Loan Theory
Interest compensates a plaintiff for loss of use of money. The plaintiff is effectively coerced into providing the defendant with a loan at the date of breach and deserves to earn interest on this forced loan at a rate that fairly represents the loss of use of that currency, typically measured by reference to the party's presumed borrowing rate in the relevant currency.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (22)

  • Wood v Capita Insurance Services Ltd [2017] AC 1173
  • F A Tamplin Steamship Co Ltd v Anglo-Mexican Petroleum Products Co Ltd [1916] 2 AC 397
  • Federal Commerce and Navigation Co Ltd v Tradax Export SA [1977] 2 All ER 41
  • Borham-Carter v Hyde Park Hotel [1948] 64 TLR
  • Masaka Municipal Council v. Semogerere [1998-2000] HCB 23
  • Musoke David v. Departed Asians Property Custodian Board [1990-1994] E.A. 219
  • Kyambadde v. Mpigi District Administration, [1983] HCB 44
  • Haji Asuman Mutekanga v Equator Growers (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1995)
  • Gapco (U) Ltd v AS Transporters (U) Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2004)
  • James Fredrick Nsubuga v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 13 of 1993)
  • Erukana Kuwe v Isaac Patrick Matovu and another (High Court Civil Suit No. 177 of 2003)
  • Hadley v Baxendale (1894) 9 Exch 341
  • Charles Acire v M Engola (High Court Civil Suit No. 143 of 1993)
  • Kibimba Rice Ltd v Umar Salim (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1992)
  • Storms v Hutchinson [1905] AC 515
  • Kabona Brothers Agencies v. Uganda Metal Products & Enamelling Co Ltd [1981-1982] HCB 74
  • Kiwanuka Godfrey T/a Tasumi Auto Spares and Class mart v Arua District Local Government (High Court Civil Suit No. 186 of 2006)
  • Temloc Ltd v Errill Properties Ltd (1987) 39 BLR 30
  • Mohanlal Kakubhai Radia v Warid Telecom Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 234 of 2011)
  • Kinyera v The Management Committee of Laroo Boarding Primary School (High Court Civil Suit No. 99 of 2013)
  • Carmichael v Caledonian Railway Co (1870) 8 M (HL) 119
  • Dodika Limited & Others v United Luck Group Holdings Limited [2020] EWHC 2101 (Comm)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

SABA GIFCO Uganda Limited v DHL Global Uganda Limited (Civil Suit 138 of 2016) [2021] UGCommC 147 (12 July 2021)
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.