Wakilii

Stella Twinebirungi v Akamba Public Services Ltd (Civil Suit No. 264 of 2004)

High Court · [2005] UGCOMMC 82 · 2005 Judgment for Defendant AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for loss of goods entrusted to common carrier
Decision
Suit dismissed on the basis that the defendant common carrier was protected by an exclusion clause of which the plaintiff had actual knowledge

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

Held that a common carrier who includes an exclusion clause limiting liability to goods carried at owner's risk is exempt from liability for loss of goods where the customer has actual knowledge of the clause through repeated dealings. The court found that the plaintiff had travelled with the defendant carrier for six years and was familiar with the receipt containing the exclusion clause. Although one package out of three was lost, the exclusion clause had been sufficiently brought to the plaintiff's attention through previous dealings. The suit was dismissed with each party bearing its own costs.

Outcome

Suit dismissed on the basis that the defendant common carrier was protected by an exclusion clause of which the plaintiff had actual knowledge

Facts

On 26 March 2004, the plaintiff travelled from Kampala to Nairobi to purchase goods for her business. On 27 March 2004, she loaded three packages of goods onto the defendant's bus for transport from Nairobi to Busia, Kenya. She received a luggage receipt. Because the bus she intended to travel on had its luggage compartment full, her goods were loaded onto a different bus. When the plaintiff arrived at Busia at 5:30 am, only two of the three packages could be found. The plaintiff had been travelling with the defendant carrier for six years and was familiar with the luggage receipt which contained an exclusion clause stating that goods were carried at owner's risk. The defendant operated as a public transporter carrying goods for hire.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff delivered the alleged parcel of goods aboard the defendant's bus.
  2. Whether there was short delivery of the plaintiff's parcel of goods by the defendants.
  3. Whether the defendants are liable for the alleged loss of goods.
  4. Whether the defendants are exempted from liability by virtue of the exclusion clause.
  5. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Suit dismissed.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Common Carriers — Definition and Duties
A common carrier is one who by profession undertakes to the public for hire to transport from place to place either by land or water the goods of persons who choose to employ them, and is bound to convey the goods of any person who offers to pay the hire.
Common Carriers — Liability as Insurer of Goods
A common carrier is an insurer of goods entrusted to them and is liable for their loss or injury in the absence of a special agreement or statutory exemption unless the loss was caused by an act of God or the Queen's enemy.
Exclusion Clauses — Notice Requirement
Where an exclusion clause is set out or referred to in a document given by one party to another, it must have been brought to the notice of that party in order to bind them, and courts will not imply a condition excluding liability for negligence unless the fact that such a term is one of the conditions has actually been brought to the other party's notice.
Exclusion Clauses — Imputed Knowledge Through Course of Dealing
Knowledge of an exclusion clause can be imputed by the court where a party knew about the existence of the clause through previous dealings, and where a party has dealt with a carrier for six years and received receipts containing the exclusion clause many times, knowledge of the clause is imputed.
Common Carriers — Exemption from Liability
A common carrier is exempted from liability for loss of goods where the carrier carried the goods at owner's risk and the customer had actual knowledge of the exclusion clause through a course of dealing.

Cases cited (3)

  • Express Transport Company Ltd v B.A.T Tanzania Ltd (1968) EA 443
  • Dar-es-Salaam Motor Transport Co v Mehta (1970) EA 596
  • B.A.T Kenya Ltd v Express Transport (1968) EA 171

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Stella Twinebirungi v Akamba Public Services Ltd (Civil Suit No. 264 of 2004) [2005] UGCommC 82 (20 June 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.