Andereya Sinzimusi v Gomba Bus Service (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1979)

Court of Appeal · [1980] UGCA 4 · 1980 Appeal Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Civil appeal from a High Court judgment dismissing a suit for damages for personal injuries arising from a road traffic accident

Decision

Appeal allowed; appellant awarded Shs. 17,500/= general damages and Shs. 210/= special damages with interest, after a 30% reduction for contributory negligence

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 3 (treatment unverified) Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Court of Appeal held that the bus driver was negligent: he had a clear, straight road, saw cattle and herdsmen ahead, yet did not slow down, and his bus skidded onto its wrong side and struck the appellant. An unexplained violent skid is itself evidence of negligence, and the driver's failure to testify left a prima facie case of negligence unanswered. A prudent driver must anticipate that a herdsman may rush onto the road to drive away cattle. The appellant was also negligent in failing to safeguard himself. Liability was apportioned 70% to the driver and 30% to the appellant. The appeal was allowed and the appellant awarded damages less his 30% contribution.

Facts

The appellant sued the respondent bus company for damages for personal injuries sustained when he was knocked down by the respondent's bus (UVL 291) on the Kampala–Gomba road about two miles from Kibibi. The appellant claimed he was walking on the grass on his correct side when the bus came from behind and hit him. The only defence witness, Semambo, the ticket examiner travelling in the bus, said the appellant was grazing cattle; a heifer stood still in the middle of the road about 50 yards ahead, with other cattle and three herdsmen at the roadside. As the bus approached at 20–25 mph, the appellant rushed into the road from his wrong side to drive off the heifer and struck the bus, which skidded and ended in a ditch on the wrong side of the road. The driver did not testify, and no police officer who visited the scene was called. The road was dry and straight for at least 50 yards in each direction. The trial judge believed the defence and held the appellant solely to blame, dismissing the suit.

Issues

Whether the driver of the respondent's bus was negligent in failing to take precautions on seeing cattle and herdsmen on the road.
Whether the appellant was guilty of contributory negligence in rushing into the road to drive off the heifer.
How liability for the accident should be apportioned between the driver and the appellant.
Whether the trial judge's findings of fact were erroneous or based on inadmissible hearsay evidence.

Orders

Appeal allowed.
Liability apportioned 70% to the driver and 30% to the appellant.
Appellant awarded Shs. 17,500/= general damages and Shs. 210/= special damages (the trial award less 30% for his contribution), with interest at 6% per annum from the date of judgment until payment in full.
Costs awarded to the appellant in this court and in the court below.

Key headnotes

Negligence — Duty of Driver Encountering Cattle and Persons on Highway

A motorist is bound to anticipate that things, people or animals may be on the road and must drive no faster than will permit stopping or deflecting course to avoid anything seen; a prudent driver meeting cattle must slow down, be prepared to stop, and anticipate that a herdsman may rush onto the road to drive away the cattle.

Negligence — Inference from Unexplained Skid and Vehicle on Wrong Side of Road

Where a vehicle on the wrong side of the road collides with a pedestrian, the driver must explain how his position is consistent with reasonable care; an unexplained and violent skid is in itself evidence of negligence.

Failure to Call Driver — Prima Facie Case Unanswered

Where a prima facie case of negligence is established against a driver who fails to give evidence explaining how the accident occurred, the unexplained case stands, and the burden of explaining the absence of negligence rests on the party who should have called him.

Contributory Negligence — Pedestrian's Duty to Safeguard Self

A person is guilty of contributory negligence if he ought reasonably to have foreseen that failing to act as a reasonably prudent man might cause him harm, and a person who rushes into the road in the path of an approaching vehicle without taking precautions for his own safety is partly to blame for resulting injuries.

Negligence — Negligent Driving Distinct from Criminal Negligence

Negligent driving sufficient to support a civil action does not necessarily amount to the degree of negligence required to constitute a criminal offence; the fact that no criminal charge was brought against the driver does not preclude a finding of civil negligence.

Cases cited (4)

Tart v Chitty & Co [1931] All ER (Rep) 826
Richley v Faull (1965) 1.TO 1454
Grant v Sun Shipping Co Ltd [1948] 2 All ER 238
Jones v Livox Quarries Ltd [1952] 2 QB 608

Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.