[2018] UGHCCD 223

[2018] UGHCCD 223

The court found that the applicant is the rightful owner of the goods in question, as the purported consignee does not exist as a legal entity in Uganda and the related suit in the Commercial Division was part of a fraudulent scheme. The respondent's continued custody of the goods was unjustified, especially given...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] UGHCCD 223
Parties
Applicant: World Best Corporation; Respondent: The Commissioner Customs, Uganda Revenue Authority
Court
HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Miscellaneous Cause No. 121 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Cause / Ruling
Outcome
application granted
Judges
Musa Ssekaana, J
Legal Topics
Release of Goods, Customs Bonded Warehouse, Fraudulent Consignee, Indemnity, Ownership Dispute
Source Language
en
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Release of Goods Customs Bonded Warehouse Fraudulent Consignee Indemnity Ownership Dispute

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

World Best Corporation

Applicant

The Commissioner Customs, Uganda Revenue Authority

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Cause / Ruling

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a release order and possession of the goods held in Customs Bonded Warehouse No. W0383.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent is justified in withholding the goods due to an ongoing suit and concerns about the consignee's existence.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant must indemnify the respondent against future third party claims.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant is the rightful owner of the goods in question, as the purported consignee does not exist as a legal entity in Uganda and the related suit in the Commercial Division was part of a fraudulent scheme. The respondent's continued custody of the goods was unjustified, especially given the applicant's undertaking to indemnify the respondent against any future third party claims. The court exercised its discretion under Section 33 of the Judicature Act to grant a release order and possession to the applicant, subject to execution of a new power of attorney in favour of the lawyers and a deed of indemnity. The court also determined that each party should bear...

Court Disposition

application granted

Orders

  • A Release Order and Possession is granted to the applicant and its duly appointed agents in respect of goods identified in containers no. CBHU4137293 and CBHU3883277 currently held at Customs Bonded Warehouse No. W0383.
  • The applicant shall execute a new power of attorney in favour of the lawyers who will receive the goods.