[2011] UGCA 16

[2011] UGCA 16

The Court of Appeal found that the contract between the parties was evidenced by written correspondence, which included a term that the appellant would be liable for excess transit losses exceeding 0.25% of allowable levels. The appellant failed to discharge its burden of proof regarding its assertions that transit losses did not occur or were merely reading variations caused by measurement discrepancies. The evidence, including joint dipping exercises and expert reports, did not conclusively establish that measurement errors were responsible for all alleged losses. The respondent provided sufficient evidence of excess losses, and the appellant's contractual undertaking rendered it liable...

Citation
[2011] UGCA 16
Parties
Appellant: Afrofreight Forwarders Ltd; Respondent: Shell (Uganda) Ltd
Court
Court of Appeal of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
21 September 2011
Case Number
Civil Appeal No. 083/09
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Judges
Mpagi-Bahigeine, DCJ, Byamugisha, JA, Nshimye, JA
Legal Topics
Contract of Carriage, Burden of Proof, Transit Losses, Handling Charges, Evidence Evaluation
Source Language
English
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Contract of Carriage Burden of Proof Transit Losses Handling Charges Evidence Evaluation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Afrofreight Forwarders Ltd

Appellant

Shell (Uganda) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who had the burden to prove the existence or non-existence of excess transit losses?
  2. 2 Whether the respondent suffered excess transit losses in fact.
  3. 3 If so, whether the appellant is liable for those losses.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal found that the contract between the parties was evidenced by written correspondence, which included a term that the appellant would be liable for excess transit losses exceeding 0.25% of allowable levels. The appellant failed to discharge its burden of proof regarding its assertions that transit losses did not occur or were merely reading variations caused by measurement discrepancies. The evidence, including joint dipping exercises and expert reports, did not conclusively establish that measurement errors were responsible for all alleged losses. The respondent provided sufficient evidence of excess losses, and the appellant's contractual undertaking rendered it liable...

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent both in the Court of Appeal and the High Court.