Wakilii

Sugar Corporation of Uganda Ltd and Another vs Milly Masembe (Civil Appeal No 44 of 1997)

Court of Appeal · [1998] UGCA 9 · 1998 Appeal Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from High Court judgment in a negligence suit, with a cross-appeal by the respondent
Decision
Appeal allowed; respondent's suit dismissed with costs

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (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 allowed the appeal, holding that the trial Judge failed to properly evaluate the evidence. Reappraising the record under its retrial jurisdiction, the Court found that the photographs of the scene corroborated the appellants' evidence that the tractor broke down suddenly on the far left of the road, that tree-branch warning signs were placed front and rear, and that the trailer's reflectors were visible and unobstructed. The second appellant had done all that was expected of him. The accident was caused wholly by the minibus driver's failure to keep a proper lookout. The respondent's suit was dismissed with costs.

Facts

On 28 December 1993, the first appellant's trailer-drawn tractor, driven by the second appellant, was transporting sugar canes along the Mukono/Jinja road when it suddenly broke down opposite Namagunga Secondary School, partly covering its side of the road. At night, a minibus carrying the respondent, a businesswoman travelling from Kampala towards Jinja, hit the rear of the stationary tractor. The respondent sustained injuries, was hospitalised for two months and remained on crutches for a further three months. She also lost personal property, including cash and films. The minibus driver was not a party to or a witness in the suit. The trial Judge found the tractor driver 80% to blame for leaving the vehicle unguarded, unlit and without warning, and the minibus driver 20% to blame, and awarded the respondent damages. The appellants appealed, contending that warning tree branches were placed and that the reflectors were visible, as shown in scene photographs.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial Judge properly evaluated the evidence regarding the situation at the scene of the accident.
  2. Whether the second appellant (tractor driver) was negligent in the manner the broken-down tractor was left on the road.
  3. How liability for the accident should be apportioned between the appellants and the driver of the minibus.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Judgment and orders of the lower court set aside.
  • Substituted with a judgment dismissing the respondent's suit.
  • Costs awarded to the appellants both in the Court of Appeal and in the court below.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — First Appeal — Duty of Appellate Court to Re-evaluate Evidence
An appeal from a trial by the High Court in its original jurisdiction is by way of a rehearing; the appellate court must reconsider and re-evaluate the evidence and draw its own conclusions, while making allowance for not having seen or heard the witnesses, and is not bound to follow the trial Judge's findings of fact where he failed to take account of material circumstances.
Tort Law — Negligence — Duty of Driver of Broken-down Vehicle on Highway
A driver whose vehicle suddenly breaks down on the highway discharges his duty of care where he leaves the vehicle on the far side of the road, places adequate warning signs in front of and behind it, and the vehicle's reflectors remain visible; such measures constitute sufficient warning to other road users.
Tort Law — Negligence — Causation — Failure to Keep Proper Lookout
Where adequate warning signs are displayed at the scene of a broken-down vehicle, a following driver who collides with it is wholly responsible for the accident if he was driving without a proper lookout that would have enabled him to see and avoid the obstruction.
Evidence — Photographic Evidence — Probative Value at Scene of Accident
Photographs are more graphic evidence and may depict the situation at the scene of an accident more accurately and reliably than oral testimony; where they corroborate witness evidence in material particulars, they may be preferred over contrary findings of fact by the trial court.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Court of Appeal Rules Directions 1996 (Legal Notice No. 11 of 1996) rule 29(1)(a)

Cases cited (2)

  • Selle and Another v Associated Motor Boat Company Ltd and Another (1968) EA 123
  • Abdul Hameed Saif v Ali Mohamed Sholan [1955] 22 EACA 270
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.