Wakilii

Tesco International v P&O Nedlloyed (Civil Suit No. 129 of 2003)

High Court · [2004] UGCOMMC 29 · 2004 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for breach of contract arising from carriage of goods by sea
Decision
Judgment entered for plaintiff with special and general damages plus interest

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 carrier who undertakes to deliver goods safely and securely is in breach of contract where containers arrive with seals intact but are found empty, and where discrepancies between Bill of Lading seal numbers and actual seals on containers remain unexplained. The carrier's failure to explain these discrepancies, combined with the carrier's dissuasion of verification at port of discharge, constitutes tacit admission of interference with goods. Special damages must be specifically pleaded and proved; unchallenged oral testimony on quantum is sufficient proof where documentary evidence is absent.

Outcome

Judgment entered for plaintiff with special and general damages plus interest

Facts

In 2002, the plaintiff contracted with the defendant carrier for shipment of 10 containers of Tiger batteries from China to Dar-es-Salaam. The defendant issued a Bill of Lading showing the goods shipped. When the goods arrived in Dar-es-Salaam, the plaintiff's clearing agent noticed that seal numbers on the containers did not match those stated in the Bill of Lading. The agent sought to verify the goods before clearing, but the defendant assured them verification was unnecessary as all seals were intact. The agent cleared the goods and forwarded them to Kampala by rail. On arrival in Kampala, all containers bore intact seals from both the defendant and Tanzania Customs, but verification revealed 2 of the 10 containers were completely empty. The value of lost batteries was US$ 78,000.

Issues

  1. Whether or not the defendant was in breach of a duty of care and/or contract to deliver the 2 containers safely and securely.
  2. The available remedies.

Orders

  • The defendant shall pay the plaintiff a sum of US$ 78,000 as special damages.
  • The defendant shall further pay the plaintiff a sum of shillings 10,000,000 as general damages.
  • The defendant shall pay interest on US$ 78,000 at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of the arrival of the 2 empty containers in Dar-es-Salaam till payment in full.
  • The defendant shall pay interest on shillings 10,000,000 at Court rate from the date of judgment till payment in full.
  • The defendant shall bear the costs of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Carriage of Goods — Carrier's Duty to Deliver Safely and Securely
A carrier who undertakes to deliver goods safely and securely breaches the contract where containers arrive with seals intact but are found empty, particularly where discrepancies exist between Bill of Lading seal numbers and actual container seals that the carrier fails to explain.
Evidence — Tacit Admission — Failure to Challenge or Explain
Where a party fails to challenge testimony or to explain material discrepancies in evidence, such as differences between documented seal numbers and actual seals on delivered containers, the court may treat this as tacit admission of the truthfulness of the evidence.
Damages & Quantum — Special Damages — Pleading and Proof — Oral Evidence
Special damages must be particularly pleaded and specifically proved. Where the quantum is pleaded with specificity and oral testimony on quantum is given but not challenged in cross-examination, the court may accept that testimony as sufficient proof even in the absence of documentary evidence.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Inconvenience from Non-Delivery
A plaintiff who suffers inconvenience from non-delivery of goods under a commercial contract is entitled to general damages as compensation for that inconvenience.
Damages & Quantum — Interest — Commercial Transactions — Rate
Where loss arises from a commercial transaction, the court may award interest on special damages at a commercial rate (15% per annum) from the date of loss until payment in full, and interest on general damages at court rate from judgment until payment in full.

Cases cited (2)

  • Phillips v Ward (1956) 1 All E.R. 874
  • Estate of Kurji Karsan v Maganlal Bhatt and another (Civil Appeal No. 25 of 1964)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Tesco International v P&O Nedlloyed (Civil Suit No. 129 of 2003) [2004] UGCommC 29 (9 September 2004)
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.