Wakilii

Uganda Rural Development and Training (URDT) and Another v Kimarakwija (Civil Appeal 15 of 2023)

High Court · [2023] UGHC 150 · 2023 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from the judgment of the Chief Magistrate's Court, Hoima at Kagadi
Decision
Appeal dismissed with costs; respondent entitled to compensation for goats and general damages; special damages award set aside.

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 High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial magistrate's judgment save for the award of special damages. The court held that the respondent's goats were unlawfully detained by the appellants and died in their custody, entitling the respondent to compensation at current market value. The preliminary objection on timeliness was overruled because the appellant had applied for certified proceedings within time and the respondent failed to prove when the proceedings were ready for collection. The counterclaim failed because the second defendant's own pleadings admitted that the goats had not entered the gardens or caused damage.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed with costs; respondent entitled to compensation for goats and general damages; special damages award set aside.

Facts

The respondent's 15 goats were impounded by the second appellant, a farm manager employed by the first appellant, on allegations that the goats had trespassed and destroyed crops on the first appellant's farm. The respondent demanded the release of his goats, but the appellants refused and detained them. All 15 goats died while in the appellants' custody. Two consolidated suits were tried in the Chief Magistrate's Court at Kagadi. The respondent sued for the release of his goats or their value; the first appellant counterclaimed for damages for trespass and crop destruction. The trial magistrate found for the respondent, ordering compensation for the goats, special damages, and general damages. The appellants appealed, arguing that the goats had destroyed crops and that the damages were awarded without proof.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial magistrate erred in failing to consider the first appellant's counterclaim.
  2. Whether the trial magistrate erred in failing to find that the respondent's goats trespassed on the first appellant's gardens and destroyed crops.
  3. Whether the trial magistrate erred in failing to consider the evidence of Defence Witness No. 3, Agaba Moses.
  4. Whether the trial magistrate erred in awarding special and general damages without proof of such damage by the respondent.
  5. Whether the appeal was filed out of time.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Judgment and orders of the lower court upheld save for the order for special damages of UGX 4,000,000 which is set aside.
  • Order for compensation of UGX 5,250,000 for the 15 goats upheld.
  • Order for general damages of UGX 4,000,000 upheld.
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Limitation — Time for Appeal — Exclusion of Time for Certification of Proceedings
In computing the period of limitation for filing an appeal, the time taken by the court or registrar in making a copy of the decree or order appealed against and of the proceedings upon which it is founded must be excluded under section 79(2) of the Civil Procedure Act. The record of proceedings will only be prepared upon the application of the intending appellant, and the 30-day limitation period begins to run only after the appellant is availed with certified copies of the proceedings and judgment. The burden is on the respondent to prove that the appeal is incompetent by showing that the appellant filed after the lapse of 30 days from the date the proceedings were ready for collection.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Parties Bound by Pleadings — Effect on Determination of Issues
Parties in civil matters are bound by what they say in their pleadings, which have the potential of forming the record, and the court itself is also bound by what the parties have stated in their pleadings as to the facts relied on by them. Where a party's pleadings contradict or dispose of an issue at the pleading stage, no further evidence is required to resolve that issue.
Tort Law — Trespass by Animals — Unlawful Detention — Liability of Owner Where Animals Die in Custody
Where animals are impounded on allegations of trespass but it is subsequently established that the animals did not trespass or cause damage, the detention is unlawful. Where the animals die while in the unlawful custody of the person who impounded them, that person is liable to compensate the owner for the value of the animals. An employer is vicariously liable for the actions of an employee acting in the course of employment, including the impounding and detention of animals by a farm manager.
Damages & Quantum — Valuation of Livestock — Current Market Value — Expert Evidence
In assessing compensation for lost livestock, the court may award the current market value of the animals based on expert evidence. A veterinary officer is qualified to give evidence of the current market value of livestock, particularly improved breeding stock, and such evidence is admissible for the purpose of determining compensation. The assessment is not confined to the value at the time of loss but may reflect the current market value at the time of judgment.
Damages & Quantum — Special Damages — Strict Proof Required — Pleading Particulars
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. Where a party fails to plead particulars of special damages, an award of special damages cannot be sustained on appeal.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Assessment at Court's Discretion — Factors Considered
General damages are awarded at the discretion of the court, taking into account what the law presumes to be the natural probable consequences of the wrongful act. In making a general award, the court may consider factors such as the value of the subject matter, the nature and extent of the injury, malice or arrogance on the part of the defendant, inconvenience suffered, and the injury to the plaintiff. Failure by a party to adduce detailed evidence as to how and what damages were suffered does not in itself disentitle a party to damages if they are deserved.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (16)

  • Sanyu Lwanga Musoke v Galiwango (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 48 of 1995)
  • Milly Masembe v SCOUL (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2000)
  • Tight Security Ltd v Chartis (U) Insurance Co. Ltd (High Court Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2014)
  • Hajji Mohammed Nyanzi Onyango and Others v J. Hannington Wasswa and Another (High Court Civil Appeal No. 37 of 1985)
  • Yokosofati Muwonge v Godfrey Matovu Salongo (High Court Civil Appeal No. 98 of 2018)
  • Nawemba Suleiman v Byekwaso Maganda [1989] HCB 140
  • Jani Properties Ltd v Dares Salaam City Council [1966] EA 281
  • Struggle (U) Ltd v Pan-African Insurance Co. Ltd [1990] ALR 46-67
  • Monica Birungi and 3 Others v Kusemererwa Grace and 2 Others (High Court Civil Appeal No. 74 of 2014)
  • Hajji Asuman Mutekanga v Equator Growers (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1992)
  • Crown Beverages Ltd v Sendu (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2005)
  • Okello Dafala Valente v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 9 of 2004)
  • Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Ex. 341
  • Acire v Angola (High Court Civil Suit No. 143 of 1993)
  • Obong v Kisumu Council [1971] EA 91
  • James Bwogi & Sons Enterprises Ltd v Kampala City Council and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2017)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda Rural Development and Training (URDT) and Another v Kimarakwija (Civil Appeal 15 of 2023) [2023] UGHC 150 (30 October 2023)
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.