Wakilii

Standard Chartered Bank (U) Ltd & Anor v EMAG AG (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2003)

Court of Appeal · [2005] UGCA 12 · 2005 Appeal Dismissed; Cross-Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal and cross-appeal from a High Court (Commercial Division) judgment awarding damages for conversion and detinue of goods
Decision
Main appeal dismissed; cross-appeal partly allowed with general damages enhanced to Shs 40 million and special damages of Shs 65 million upheld

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 4 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 4 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations steady — 4 citing cases on record, 3 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 bank and receiver's appeal, upholding the trial Judge's finding that the respondent's hides and skins, held by Al Ahamed as bailee, were seized and sold under receivership, constituting conversion. The exact premises where goods were stored was immaterial as they were all under the debtor's control. The receiver, being a bank employee charged with recovering the bank's debt, was in practice the bank's agent, making the bank liable. On the cross-appeal, the special damages award of Shs 65 million was left intact as the respondent failed to prove the claimed value, but general damages were enhanced from Shs 10 million to Shs 40 million.

Outcome

Main appeal dismissed; cross-appeal partly allowed with general damages enhanced to Shs 40 million and special damages of Shs 65 million upheld

Facts

The respondent, a dealer in hides and skins, delivered goods to Al Ahamed Hides and Skins Limited, a Kampala tannery, under a tanning contract, with Al Ahamed holding the goods as bailee. During the currency of the contract, the first appellant bank placed Al Ahamed under receivership and, through the second appellant (a bank employee appointed receiver/manager) and a successor receiver, sold all goods found in the company's warehouses and tannery, including goods belonging to the respondent. The respondent had notified the bank of its ownership through correspondence, including a letter from its lawyers particularising the goods and demanding their release. The bank declined to investigate the claim, requiring proof of title, and proceeded with the sale. The respondent sued for wrongful seizure, detinue and conversion, claiming special damages of US $103,916.20 (the value of the goods) and general damages. The trial court awarded Shs 65 million special damages and Shs 10 million general damages with interest.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial Judge properly evaluated the evidence in concluding that the seized goods belonged to the respondent.
  2. Whether the location of the goods among the debtor's premises was material to a claim in conversion where the debtor held them as bailee.
  3. Whether the first appellant bank was liable for the acts of the receiver/manager and the proceeds of sale.
  4. Whether the receiver/manager was an agent of the bank or of the company under receivership.
  5. Whether the acts of the receiver constituted conversion and detinue of the respondent's goods.
  6. Whether the awards of special and general damages should be enhanced on cross-appeal.

Orders

  • Main appeal dismissed in toto.
  • Cross-appeal partly allowed.
  • Special damages of Shs 65 million upheld.
  • General damages enhanced to Shs 40 million.
  • Costs of the suit here and below awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Conversion and Detinue — Bailment — Location of Goods Immaterial
Where goods are held by a bailee who has possession and control but no property in them, the precise premises in which the bailee stores the goods is immaterial to a claim in conversion; what matters is that the goods were under the control of the bailee whose entire stock was seized.
Conversion and Detinue — Elements — Seizure, Demand and Refusal
To sustain a suit in conversion and detinue there must be a seizure of goods belonging to another or dealing with them so as to constitute an unjustifiable denial of the owner's rights, ultimately followed by a demand by the owner and a refusal by the defendant to hand over the goods.
Receivership — Agency of Receiver — Receiver as Agent of Appointing Creditor
Although a receiver is in law ordinarily an agent of the company placed under receivership, where the receiver is at the same time an employee of the appointing creditor bank charged with recovering the debt, he may be treated as the agent of the bank, rendering the bank liable for his conduct.
Special Damages — Requirement to Plead and Prove — Arbitrary Valuations
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved; a bare assertion of the total value of goods, or a figure realised at a forced auction sale by the highest bidder, is arbitrary and does not represent the actual value required to establish special damages.
Appellate Review of Damages — Grounds for Interference
An appellate court will interfere with a trial Judge's assessment of damages only where the Judge acted on a wrong principle of law or the amount awarded was so extremely high or small as to be an entirely erroneous estimate of the damage.

Cases cited (4)

  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Mabossi (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 26 of 1995)
  • Kananura v Connie Kabanda (Civil Appeal No. 31 of 1992)
  • Flint v Lovell [1935] 1 KB 354
  • Davies v Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd [1942] AC 601

Cases citing this judgment (4)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Standard Chartered Bank (U) Ltd & Anor v EMAG AG (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2003) [2005] UGCA 12 (23 August 2005)
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.