[2010] UGCA 1

[2010] UGCA 1

The Court of Appeal held that the respondents and the farmers they represented were contracted farmers of the appellant, based on direct evidence and secondary evidence compiled through interviews and inspection of passbooks. The appellant failed to discharge its statutory duty to maintain and produce records of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] UGCA 1
Parties
Appellant: British American Tobacco (U) Ltd; Respondent: Sedrach MwijaKubi; Respondent: Mukitale Asiimwe; Respondent: Joshua Byangire; Respondent: Fenekasi Babyesiza; Respondent: Solomon Kiiza
Court
Court of Appeal of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Civil Appeal No. 50 of 2008.
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs to respondents; decree of High Court varied as to interest rate only.
Judges
Twinomujuni, JA, Engwau, JA, Nshimye, JA
Legal Topics
Contractual Liability, Representative Actions, Burden of Proof, Interest Awards, Evidence Admissibility
Source Language
en
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Contractual Liability Representative Actions Burden of Proof Interest Awards Evidence Admissibility

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

British American Tobacco (U) Ltd

Appellant

Sedrach MwijaKubi

Respondent

Mukitale Asiimwe

Respondent

Joshua Byangire

Respondent

Fenekasi Babyesiza

Respondent

Solomon Kiiza

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the respondents were the appellant's contracted farmers.
  2. 2 Whether all persons listed in the representative action had the same interest.
  3. 3 Whether the tobacco was grown in accordance with the contract.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the respondents and the farmers they represented were contracted farmers of the appellant, based on direct evidence and secondary evidence compiled through interviews and inspection of passbooks. The appellant failed to discharge its statutory duty to maintain and produce records of contracted farmers, and did not provide evidence to rebut the respondents' claims. The representative action was properly constituted, as all listed farmers had the same interest. The trial judge was correct in finding breach of contract by the appellant for failing to purchase the tobacco delivered to its sheds. However, the award of interest at 26% per annum was excessive and...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs to respondents; decree of High Court varied as to interest rate only.

Orders

  • Appeal is dismissed.
  • Respondents are awarded costs in the Court of Appeal and the High Court.