Wakilii

Trade Impex Ltd v Sserunkuma and Another (CML Appeal No.69 of 2006)

Court of Appeal · [2012] UGCA 67 · 2012 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from a judgment of the High Court (Commercial Division)
Decision
Appeal dismissed; each party to bear its own 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

The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by a mortgagor company against a High Court judgment arising from receivership over its mortgaged property. The court held that a party disputing an excessive taxed bill of costs must proceed by appeal or review, not by a fresh suit, so the refund claim failed. It upheld the trial judge's finding that the interest claim was not proved, interest running only from effected transfer. On the unexplained ECU 46,911.16 debit, the court agreed the entry looked suspicious but was contained in a rejected report prepared by an unqualified person, so no award could be made. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; each party to bear its own costs

Facts

Between 1989 and 1991 the appellant company obtained a loan of ECU 255,000 (about US$300,000) from Development Finance Company of Uganda Limited (DFCU), secured by a mortgage over its property along Spring Close, Kampala, and a debenture over its assets. Upon default, DFCU appointed the respondents as receivers, who sold the company's assets including the mortgaged property, which fetched US$670,000. Of the proceeds, only US$24,414.19 was paid to the appellant as balance after deducting the loan and expenses. The appellant challenged the accountability and sued. The High Court (Commercial Division) awarded the appellant UGX 5 million general damages plus interest and costs, finding that proper accountability would have avoided the suit, but rejected the appellant's other claims, including a refund of legal fees, alleged wrongly computed interest, and an unexplained ECU 46,911.16 debit. The appellant appealed against the rejected claims.

Issues

  1. Whether the appellant could claim a refund from the respondents of the amount claimed to have been expended as legal fees on the basis of a sum mentioned in an order requiring the furnishing of security for costs.
  2. Whether the trial judge erred in law in not making any findings on wrongly computed interest arising out of the sale of the mortgaged property when such interest was in issue.
  3. Whether the trial judge erred in not making any finding on the figure of ECU 46,911.16 (equivalent to US$56,997.72) allegedly illegally debited to the account of the appellant.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Each party to bear its own costs here and in the court below.

Rules and key headnotes

Costs — Taxation — Remedy for Excessive Bill of Costs
A party aggrieved by an allegedly excessive taxed bill of costs must pursue the remedy of appeal or review provided by law, and cannot seek a refund of such costs by instituting a fresh suit against an order passed by the same court.
Costs — Discretion of Court — Security for Costs
The costs of and incidental to all suits are in the discretion of the court under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, and an appellate court will not interfere with a sum assessed and fixed by a judge in exercise of that discretion absent good reason.
Receivership — Duty of Receiver to Account to Company
A receiver appointed over a company's property is an agent of the company and owes a duty to account fully to the company for all receipts and payments, including interest accrued on any sale of property placed under receivership.
Documentary Evidence — Rejected Report by Unqualified Person
A court cannot base a monetary award on a suspicious accounting entry where the document evidencing it forms part of a report prepared by an unqualified person that was rejected and abandoned in evidence.
Parol Evidence Rule — Oral Evidence Contradicting Written Contract
Under sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act, oral evidence is not admissible to contradict the terms of a written contract, including the terms governing when interest on a sale agreement begins to run.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (4)

  • Muwonge Vs Musah [2004] 2 EA 187
  • Gomba Holdings (UK) Ltd Vs Homan [1986] 3 ALL ER 94 at 97
  • Uganda Commercial Bank Vs Kigozi [2002] EA 305
  • Frank Makumbi Vs Kigezi African Bus Co. Ltd. [1986] HCB 69

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Trade Impex Ltd v Sserunkuma and Another (CML Appeal No.69 of 2006) [2012] UGCA 67 (19 November 2012)
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.