Suresh Chandra A Ghelani v Patel (Civil Appeal No. 56 of 2004)

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.

Holding

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's award of exemplary damages and a restitutionary refund. Exemplary damages were justified because the appellant, knowing of the respondent's ill health, caused his arrest and detention out of greed to compel payment, conduct that was high-handed and vindictive. The court held that the function of a restitutionary remedy is to restore the value of what the plaintiff has lost; as the appellant had unjustly obtained US$25,000 from the respondent, allowing him to retain it would amount to unjust enrichment and benefiting from his own wrongdoing. The award of compound interest was therefore appropriate.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment upholding refund, compound interest and exemplary/aggravated damages affirmed

Facts

The respondent had been granted repossession of properties on Plots 5 (William Road) and 27 (Nkrumah Road) in Kampala by consent judgment under the Expropriated Properties Act 1982, having acquired interests by succession and assignment. The appellant, claiming a Power of Attorney from the executors of the estate of the late M.A. Amin who had owned 10% of the properties, demanded US$180,000 from the respondent as the value of that share. When payment was delayed, the appellant reported the respondent to police alleging forgery, knowing the respondent suffered from a kidney problem. The respondent was arrested and detained, denied proper medical treatment, and released only after paying US$25,000 with a promise to pay the balance. The respondent fled to the UK for treatment and sued for recovery of the money as money had and received, plus exemplary and aggravated damages, interest and costs. The appellant counterclaimed as agent. The High Court gave judgment against the appellant, prompting this appeal.

Issues

1. Whether the High Court properly awarded exemplary damages against the appellant.
2. Whether the award of a refund of US$25,000 with compound interest as a restitutionary remedy was appropriate.

Orders

• Appeal dismissed with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (2)

• Expropriated Properties Act 1982 s.14(1)
• Court of Appeal Rules Directions 1996 r.97

Cases cited (5)

• Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd [1943] AC 32
• Manzoor v Baram (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2001)
• McConnell v Kimani [1967] EA 702
• Kalinin v Kaur (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1995)
• Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council [1996] 2 All ER 961

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