Security Group (U) Ltd v Marie Stopes Uganda Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 156 of 2013)
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 dismissed the appeal. It held that conferencing/scheduling before appeals, though a beneficial case-management practice, has no legal backing and is not an 'essential step' under Rule 82 of the Court of Appeal Rules; non-compliance therefore did not justify striking out the appeal, and the respondent's preliminary objection was rejected. On the merits, the court held that special damages, while requiring strict pleading and proof, need not be supported by documentary evidence in every case. The trial judge properly relied on the claim form and insurance loss-assessment report proving the value of stolen property at Ugx 52,353,211, and the appellant failed to rebut this evidence.
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; trial court's award of special damages upheld
Facts
The respondent contracted the appellant to provide 24-hour guarding/security services at its office premises. While the premises were being guarded by the appellant's employee, they were broken into and the respondent's computers and other electronic equipment worth Ugx 52,353,211 were stolen or lost. The respondent sued the appellant for recovery of that sum as special damages arising from breach of the guarding contract, plus general damages and costs. The trial judge found the appellant vicariously liable for its employee's failure to protect the property and held the lost property was worth Ugx 52,353,211. As the respondent had been partly compensated by her insurer AIG Uganda Limited in the sum of Ugx 4,628,799, the trial judge ordered payment of Ugx 47,724,412 (the loss less the insurance recovery), with interest at 12% per annum from 8 April 2008 (when the cause of action arose) until full payment, and costs. The appellant appealed.
Issues
- Whether the practice of holding a scheduling conference prior to hearing an appeal constitutes an 'essential step in the proceedings' under Rule 82 of the Court of Appeal Rules, non-compliance with which justifies striking out the appeal.
- Whether the trial judge erred in awarding special damages of Ugx 52,353,211 for lost/stolen property without receipts or delivery notes.
- Whether the award of interest at 12% per annum had a legal or factual basis.
Orders
- The respondent's preliminary objection to strike out the appeal is dismissed.
- Appeal dismissed.
- Costs of the appeal to the respondent.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (7)
- Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules S.I 13-10 r.2(2)
- Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules S.I 13-10 r.82
- Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules S.I 13-10 r.30(1)
- Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules S.I 13-10 r.76
- Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules S.I 13-10 r.78
- Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules S.I 13-10 r.83
- Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules, S.I No. 26 of 1998
Cases cited (6)
- Pandya Vs R [1957] EA 336
- Executive Director of National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA) v Solid State Limited (Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2015)
- Byabalema & 2 Others v UTC (1975) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 10 of 1993)
- Administrator General v Bwanika James & 9 Others (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2003)
- Kyambadde Vs Mpigi District Administration [1983] HCB 44
- Crane Bank Ltd v Nipun Narottam Bhatia (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2014)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.