Wakilii

Ugachick Poultry Breeders Ltd vs Tadjin Kara T A S.T. Enterprises Ltd (Civil Appeal No 2 of 1997)

Court of Appeal · [1998] UGCA 11 · 1998 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from High Court judgment in a suit for the price of goods sold and delivered
Decision
Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment awarding Shs. 68 million to the respondent upheld

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 1 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.

Good law Followed in 1 case and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. 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

By majority (Manyindo DCJ and Engwau JA; Twinomujuni JA dissenting), the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's judgment awarding the respondent Shs. 68 million as the contract price for protein concentrates. The majority held that Exhibit D2 and the evidence of DW4 (the Belgian manufacturer) had no probative value because his opinion was based on assumption rather than examination of the goods' actual condition at the time of sale. Since the appellant took delivery after testing the goods and conceded Shs. 68 million was a reasonable market price if the concentrates had not expired, the burden shifted to the appellant to prove expiry, which it failed to discharge by declining to produce its own test results.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment awarding Shs. 68 million to the respondent upheld

Facts

The respondent, trading as S.T. Enterprises Ltd, held 104 tons of VDS protein concentrates imported from Belgium and stored in Kampala. Between June and July 1994, the appellant, a poultry breeder, and the respondent entered into an oral contract for sale of the concentrates. Before delivery, the appellant obtained samples and tested them at its own laboratory and at Makerere University's Food and Science Department, then took delivery of all the goods. A dispute arose over the price: the respondent claimed Shs. 68 million (Shs. 650 per kilo) while the appellant contended the price was Shs. 5,200,000 (Shs. 50 per kilo), asserting the vitamin content had expired leaving only usable soya. The appellant did not produce its test results at trial, instead relying on the evidence of DW4, the Belgian manufacturer, and his letter (Exhibit D2), which opined the concentrates had expired based on their manufacture date rather than examination of their condition at sale.

Issues

  1. Whether the shelf life of the protein concentrates had expired or was about to expire at the time of delivery.
  2. Whether the agreed contract price was Shs. 68 million or Shs. 5,200,000.
  3. Whether Exhibit D2 and the evidence of DW4 had probative value.
  4. On whom the burden of proof lay regarding the expiry of the concentrates and the agreed price.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs of the appeal and in the court below awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Expert Opinion — Weight — Opinion Based on Assumption Rather Than Examination
Expert opinion evidence carries no probative value where it is founded on assumption about the probable condition of goods rather than on examination or testing of their actual condition at the material time; a court is not bound to accept expert opinion if it gives good reason for rejecting it.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Shifting of Evidential Burden — Party Withholding Available Evidence
Where a party alleges a fact peculiarly within its knowledge, such as the expiry of goods it has tested, the evidential burden lies on that party to prove the fact on a balance of probabilities; failure to produce available test results in its possession entails that its contention cannot be sustained.
Contract Law — Sale of Goods — Price — Circumstantial Proof Where No Written Agreement
In a contract for the sale of goods, where the buyer accepts delivery after testing and concedes that the higher price would be reasonable if the goods had not expired, the agreed price may be established on circumstantial evidence in the absence of a written agreement.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Powers of Appellate Court to Re-evaluate Evidence
An appellate court has jurisdiction to review the evidence on the record to determine whether the trial court's conclusion should stand, but this jurisdiction must be exercised with caution, bearing in mind that the trial judge enjoyed the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (6)

  • Management Training and Advisory Centre v Patrick Kakuka Ikanza (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1985)
  • Peters v Sunday Post Limited [1958] EA 424
  • Watt v Thomas [1947] AC 484
  • May & Butcher Ltd v The King [1934] 2 KB 17
  • Scammell v Ouston [1941] AC 251
  • Mayanja Nkagi vs. N.R.C. [1972] 1 ULR 37

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

Ugachick Poultry Breeders Ltd vs Tadjin Kara T A S.T. Enterprises Ltd (Civil Appeal No 2 of 1997) [1998] UGCA 11 (27 April 1998)
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.