Wakilii

Kayongo Sowedi t a Taqwa Health Centre v Daniel Moses Kitibwa and Another (Civil Appeal No. 02 of 2019)

Court of Appeal · [2025] UGCA 292 · 2025 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First civil appeal from a High Court judgment finding the appellant liable in medical negligence
Decision
Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment, damages awards and licence recommendation upheld

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 dismissed a clinical officer's appeal against a finding of medical negligence arising from an infant circumcision that caused a urethral fistula. By undertaking a procedure that expert evidence showed required a urologist or plastic surgeon, without the requisite qualification, and failing to refer the patient, the appellant breached his duty of care. The court declined to interfere with the trial court's award of UGX 60,000,000 general and UGX 10,000,000 punitive damages plus 15% interest, finding no error of principle. The third ground was struck out for offending Rule 66(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules. The trial judge's recommendation to recall the appellant's licence fell within his inherent powers.

Facts

The respondent, a one-month-old infant, was taken by his parents to the appellant's health centre. The appellant, a senior medical clinical officer, performed a circumcision, asserting it was required to treat phimosis, urine retention and abdominal distention. After the operation the infant developed a urethral fistula at the lower shaft of the penis through which urine leaked. Expert witnesses testified that the conditions presented required a urologist or plastic surgeon; that catheterisation, not circumcision, was the appropriate treatment for urine retention; and that the fistula was consistent with a poorly managed surgical procedure carried out without adequate competence. The respondent, suing through his parents as next friends, claimed negligence and breach of duty of care, seeking special, general and punitive damages. The trial court found the appellant negligent and awarded UGX 60,000,000 general damages, UGX 10,000,000 punitive damages, 15% interest and costs, and recommended recall of the appellant's licence. The appellant appealed.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial judge erred in holding that the appellant was negligent and lacked the expertise to circumcise the respondent.
  2. Whether the trial judge erred in awarding excessive general damages on reasons contrary to the evidence on record.
  3. Whether the trial judge erred in coming to a wrong decision and thus wrong awards.
  4. Whether the trial judge erred in recommending action against the appellant's practice.

Orders

  • The appeal fails.
  • The judgment and orders of the lower court are upheld.
  • Costs of both this court and the lower court are awarded to the respondent.

Key headnotes

Negligence — Medical Negligence — Duty of Care — Practitioner Acting Beyond Competence
A medical practitioner who undertakes treatment requiring specialist skill he does not possess, instead of referring the patient to a qualified specialist, breaches the duty of care owed to that patient and is liable in negligence for resulting injury.
Negligence — Elements — Duty, Breach and Causation
To establish negligence the plaintiff must prove a duty of care owed by the defendant, a breach of that duty, and injury or damage suffered as a result of the breach.
Damages — Appellate Interference — Erroneous Principle or Manifestly Excessive Award
An appellate court will not interfere with an award of damages made by a trial court unless the trial court acted on a wrong principle of law or the amount awarded is so high or so low as to be an entirely erroneous estimate of the damages to which the plaintiff was entitled.
Damages — Punitive (Exemplary) Damages — Outrageous Conduct
Punitive or exemplary damages may be awarded where the defendant's conduct is sufficiently outrageous, oppressive or insensitive to merit punishment over and above compensation for the loss suffered.
Damages — Interest — Section 26(2) Civil Procedure Act — Inflation and Delay
Interest on a money decree is awarded at the discretion of the court under section 26(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, having regard to inflation, currency depreciation and the delay the plaintiff has suffered in obtaining compensation.
Appeals — Memorandum of Appeal — Rule 66(2) — Grounds Pleaded Without Concise Particulars
A ground of appeal that merely alleges the trial judge came to a wrong decision, without specifying concisely the points of law or fact wrongly decided, offends Rule 66(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules and is liable to be struck out.
Inherent Powers — Section 98 Civil Procedure Act — Recommendations in the Public Interest
A court may, in exercise of its inherent powers under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act, make recommendations necessary for the ends of justice, including protecting the public from unqualified practitioners.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directives S.I 13-10 Rule 30(1)(a)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directives S.I 13-10 Rule 66(2)
  • Civil Procedure Act s.26(2)
  • Civil Procedure Act s.98

Cases cited (15)

  • Selle and another v Associated Motor Boat Company Ltd & another [1968] EA 123
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856) 11 Ex 781; 156 ER 1047
  • Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562
  • R v Bateman (1925) 94 LJKB 791; [1925] All ER Rep 45
  • Dr Laxman Balkrishna Joshi v Dr Trimbak Bapu Godbole, AIR 1969 SC 128
  • Uganda Breweries Ltd v Uganda Railways Corporation (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2001)
  • Robert Coussens v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1999)
  • Livingstone v Rawyards Coal Co (1880) 5 App Cas 25
  • The Albazero [1977] AC 774
  • Fletcher v Autocar & Transporters Ltd [1968] 2 QB 322
  • Crown Beverages Ltd v Sendi Edward (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 01 of 2005)
  • British Columbia Saw Mill Co v Nettleship (1868) LR 3 CP 499
  • Jefford v Gee [1970] 2 QB 130
  • Muhereza Bosco and Katureebe Boaz v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 066 of 2011)
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.