[2004] UGCommC 29

[2004] UGCommC 29

The court found that the defendant was contractually obligated to deliver all 10 containers with their contents intact from China to Dar-es-Salaam. Evidence showed discrepancies between the Bill of Lading and the container seals, and the defendant dissuaded verification of the goods in Dar-es-Salaam. Upon arrival in...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2004] UGCommC 29
Parties
Plaintiff: Tesco International; Defendant: P&O Nedlloyd
Court
Commercial Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Civil Suit No. 129 of 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment
Outcome
judgment_for_plaintiff
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Carriage of Goods by Sea, Special and General Damages, Bill of Lading Discrepancies
Source Language
en
Commercial and Corporate Admiralty and Maritime Breach of Contract Carriage of Goods by Sea Special and General Damages Bill of Lading Discrepancies

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tesco International

Plaintiff

P&O Nedlloyd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether or not the defendant was in breach of a duty of care and/or contract to deliver the 2 containers safely and securely.
  2. 2 What remedies are available to the plaintiff for the alleged breach.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant was contractually obligated to deliver all 10 containers with their contents intact from China to Dar-es-Salaam. Evidence showed discrepancies between the Bill of Lading and the container seals, and the defendant dissuaded verification of the goods in Dar-es-Salaam. Upon arrival in Kampala, two containers were empty, and the defendant failed to explain the discrepancies or challenge the evidence of fraudulent interference. The court concluded that the defendant was responsible for the loss, having breached its duty to deliver the goods safely and securely. The plaintiff was entitled to special damages for the lost goods and general damages for...

Court Disposition

judgment_for_plaintiff

Orders

  • The defendant shall pay the plaintiff US$ 78,000 as special damages.
  • The defendant shall pay the plaintiff UGX 10,000,000 as general damages.