Wakilii

Sugar Corporation of Uganda Ltd v Lawsam Chemicals (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2001)

Court of Appeal · [2002] UGCA 23 · 2002 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from a High Court judgment dismissing the appellant's suit and allowing the respondent's counterclaim
Decision
Appeal dismissed with costs; High Court dismissal of the suit and allowance of the counterclaim for the unpaid balance of Shs.15,000,000 upheld

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 3 (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 3 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations rising — 3 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 appeal. It held that the chemical ordered was the same as that delivered, and that the appellant did not rely on the seller's skill and judgement: the appellant knew the product (LSR), had used it successfully three times before, and itself tested its acidic content before applying it. Accordingly the proviso to section 16(a) of the Sale of Goods Act applied. Under section 102 of the Evidence Act, the burden of proving the chemical was ineffective lay on the appellant, who failed to adduce expert evidence to discharge it. The respondent was not liable, and its counterclaim for the unpaid balance of the price was upheld.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed with costs; High Court dismissal of the suit and allowance of the counterclaim for the unpaid balance of Shs.15,000,000 upheld

Facts

In April 1999 the appellant agreed to buy from the respondent 6,000 litres of a descalant chemical known as LSR Super Acid for Shs.30,000,000, payable in two equal instalments. The respondent offered free supervisory services from the suppliers, Diversey, during the descaling of two boilers, scheduled for the September 1999 shutdown when an expert would attend. The expert did not attend on time, so the appellant's own technical personnel carried out the descaling after testing the chemical's acid content at 33.18%, finding it satisfactory. Applied to one boiler, it produced negative results. The appellant used only half the chemical, rejected the balance, and sued for a refund of the Shs.15,000,000 already paid plus Shs.300,000,000 for loss of production. The respondent contended the chemical was fit and counterclaimed for the unpaid balance of Shs.15,000,000. The High Court found the chemical fit, dismissed the suit, allowed the counterclaim, and rejected the loss-of-production claim for lack of proof.

Issues

  1. Whether the chemical ordered was the chemical delivered and whether it was fit for the purpose for which it was bought.
  2. Whether the buyer relied on the seller's skill and judgement so as to import an implied condition of fitness under section 16(a) of the Sale of Goods Act.
  3. On whom lay the burden of proving that the chemical was fit or unfit for its purpose.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs of the appeal and in the High Court awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Sale of Goods — Implied Condition of Fitness — Reliance on Seller's Skill and Judgement
Where a buyer knows the product, has used it successfully before, and independently tests it before use, the buyer does not rely on the seller's skill and judgement, and the implied condition of fitness under section 16(a) of the Sale of Goods Act is not imported.
Sale of Goods — Sale Under Trade Name — Proviso to Section 16(a)
Goods sold under a known trade name fall within the proviso to section 16(a) of the Sale of Goods Act, excluding the implied condition of fitness for a particular purpose where the buyer relied on its own familiarity with the named article rather than the seller's skill.
Burden of Proof — Defective Goods — Section 102 Evidence Act
Under section 102 of the Evidence Act, a buyer who asserts that goods delivered were the wrong or ineffective product bears the burden of proving that fact, and where the goods are normally used under expert supervision must adduce expert evidence to establish their inefficacy.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (1)

  • Baldry v Marshall [1925] 1 KB 260

Cases citing this judgment (3)

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.

Sugar Corporation of Uganda Ltd v Lawsam Chemicals (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2001) [2002] UGCA 23 (15 March 2002)
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.