Wakilii

Sylvan Kakugu Tumwesigyire v Trans Sahara International General Trading LLC (HCT-00-CC-CS 95 of 2005)

High Court · [2005] UGCOMMC 66 · 2005 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for breach of bailment contract following interlocutory judgment entered under Order 9 rule 6 for failure to file defence
Decision
Judgment entered for plaintiff with recovery of vehicle value, goods value, general damages, interest and costs

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

In a bailment contract for shipping a motor vehicle from UAE to Mombasa, where the bailee failed to redeliver the vehicle and did not file a defence, the court held the defendant liable. Plaintiff awarded USD 2,200 refund for the lost vehicle, USD 1,150 for goods inside it, UGX 4,000,000 general damages for four years of inconvenience, 20% interest from cause of action, and costs. Special damages may be proved on balance of probability without documentary evidence where circumstances support the claim.

Outcome

Judgment entered for plaintiff with recovery of vehicle value, goods value, general damages, interest and costs

Facts

On 3 December 2001, plaintiff bought a Toyota Corona Premio for USD 2,200 from World Auto Motors in UAE, one of five vehicles purchased. Goods worth USD 1,150 were placed inside the vehicle. Plaintiff contracted defendant to ship all five vehicles from UAE to Mombasa. Only four vehicles arrived; the suit vehicle with goods inside went missing. Plaintiff made several demands at defendant's Kampala office for the vehicle but it disappeared without trace and defendant did not compensate plaintiff. Summons issued on 3 February 2005. Defendant failed to file defence. Interlocutory judgment entered on 26 May 2005 under Order 9 rule 6. Matter set down for formal proof.

Issues

  1. Whether there was a shipping contract between the plaintiff and the defendant.
  2. Whether the defendant is liable for the motor vehicle which got lost in transit.
  3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the remedies prayed for.

Orders

  • Defendant to refund USD 2,200 or its equivalent in Uganda Shillings at Bank of Uganda ruling rate on date of payment.
  • Defendant to refund USD 1,150 for missing goods.
  • Defendant to pay UGX 4,000,000 as general damages.
  • Interest at 20% per annum on remedies awarded from date of cause of action until payment in full.
  • Defendant to pay costs of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Bailment — Bailee's Liability for Goods Lost in Transit
Where goods are delivered to a bailee for shipment and the bailee is unable to redeliver the goods at destination, the bailee is liable for the goods lost in transit.
Civil Procedure — Default Judgment — Effect of Failure to File Defence
Failure to file a defence raises a presumption or constructive admission of the claim made in the plaint, and the story told by the plaintiff, in the absence of a defence to contradict it, must be accepted as the truth.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Inconvenience and Loss of Business Use
Substantial inconvenience and discomfort caused by breach of contract entitle the plaintiff to general damages; where a business vehicle is lost, damages may be assessed at a reasonable annual income figure over the period of loss even without strict proof of actual earnings.
Damages & Quantum — Special Damages — Standard of Proof Without Documentary Evidence
Special damages must be claimed specifically and strictly proved, but need not be supported by documentary evidence in all cases; where circumstances make the claim perceivable and the defendant fails to rebut, special damages may be proved on the balance of probability.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (5)

  • Agadi Didi v James Namakaso (Civil Suit No. 1230 of 1988)
  • Robbialac Paints (U) Ltd v KDB Construction Ltd [1976] HCB 45
  • Sylvan Kakugu v Tropical Africa Bank (Civil Suit No. 1 of 2001)
  • Kyambadde v Mpigi District Administration [1983] HCB 44
  • Senyakazane v Attorney General [1984] HCB

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sylvan Kakugu Tumwesigyire v Trans Sahara International General Trading LLC (HCT-00-CC-CS 95 of 2005) [2005] UGCommC 66 (22 November 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.