Principle(s):

The remedies to loss of consignment after release of intercepted and seized goods by URA.

Brief facts:

The Plaintiff sued the Commissioner General, URA and URA for declarations that the Defendant were in breach of a consent decree in Civil Suit 312 of 2012 dated 6^th July 2013, return of goods seized or their value, general damages, exemplary damages and costs. The employees of the 2^nd Defendant acting in their capacity as the Revenue Authority intercepted and seized Container No. PC 14458345/7 belonging to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff being aggrieved sued the Defendant in C.S No. 312 of 2021 citing unlawful seizure and seeking recovery. The parties however reached an amicable settlement which they reduced into a consent judgment and subsequently signed by the Chief Magistrate Nakawa. The Plaintiff thus brough this suit contended that no all the items were released which the Defendant denies. 

Holding:

The plaintiff’s evidence that some of its consignment was not returned remains unrebutted by supporting documents and this being the position orders the defendant releases the goods to the plaintiff or pays the value thereof at the prices provided in Exhibit a document that was endorsed by both parties.

In the instant case the goods retained were worth a lot of money and the money was locked up in the goods retained which caused economic inconvenience to the Plaintiff and such a situation certainly calls for compensation in form of 18% interest p.a on the value of the goods and 20,000,000 Ugx as general damages. The court further refused to grant exemplary damages.