Kibimba Rice Company Limited v Umar (Civil Appeal 7 of 1988)

Supreme Court · [1990] UGSC 24 · 1990 Appeal Partly Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Civil appeal (with cross-appeal) from a High Court judgment in a running-down negligence suit.

Decision

Appeal partly allowed; liability re-apportioned equally and damages reduced; judgment entered for the respondent in the sum of Shs 160,000/-.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 11 (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

In a running-down suit where both drivers were found negligent, the Supreme Court varied the trial judge's 70/30 apportionment and divided blame equally between the parties. It held that special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved: the claim for repair charges failed because no garage bills were tendered and the repairs were never done, and the loss-of-income claim failed because the respondent mitigated his loss by buying a replacement vehicle and adduced no accounts. General damages of Shs 300,000 for inconvenience were assessed, the respondent recovering his 50% share. The High Court judgment was set aside and judgment entered for the respondent in Shs 160,000. The appellant, largely successful, was awarded the costs of the appeal.

Facts

On 9 May 1988 a Peugeot estate taxi owned by the respondent and driven by his driver collided with the appellant company's vehicle near the company's gate on the Tororo-Jinja road. The company's driver was turning right across the road into the company gate; the respondent's vehicle, behind him, was in the right-hand (overtaking) lane when the collision occurred about 15 metres in front of it. The police constable who attended placed the point of impact in the respondent's overtaking lane and reported the company vehicle had no working indicators. The respondent's vehicle was extensively damaged; the company's only dented. The company had explored an out-of-court settlement (offering to meet actual garage bills on production of bills) but never admitted liability. The respondent did not repair the vehicle and instead bought a replacement, then sued for repair charges, towing charges, loss of income and general damages.

Issues

Whether the trial judge wrongly shifted the burden of proof onto the defendant company in finding it negligent.
Whether there was evidence to support the apportionment of liability between the two drivers, and the correct apportionment.
Whether the respondent proved his claims for special damages (repair charges and loss of income).
Whether and on what basis general damages for inconvenience should be awarded.

Orders

Judgment and decree of the High Court set aside.
Liability for the accident apportioned equally — 50% to each party.
Judgment entered for the respondent (plaintiff) in the sum of Shs 160,000/-.
Appellant awarded the costs of the appeal.
Respondent awarded half the costs of the cross-appeal and the costs of the action in the High Court.

Key headnotes

Tort Law — Negligence — Contributory Negligence — Apportionment of Liability

Where both drivers in a collision are found negligent, liability is apportioned according to each party's share of blame, and an appellate court may vary the trial court's apportionment where the evidence shows the blame should be divided differently.

Civil Procedure — Special Damages — Pleading and Proof

Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved; a claim for repair charges unsupported by garage bills, and where the repairs were never carried out, cannot succeed.

Damages & Quantum — Loss of Income — Mitigation of Loss

A claim for loss of income as special damages must be proved by accounts of receipts against outgoings, and cannot run beyond the date on which the plaintiff mitigated his loss by acquiring a replacement vehicle.

Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Inference of Inconvenience

General damages for inconvenience may be inferred from the facts even where claims for special damages fail, and an appellate court may fill the omission where the trial judge failed by non-direction to assess general damages.

Civil Procedure — Framing of Issues — Widening by Consent — Burden of Proof

A party who consents to widening the trial issues to include a possible division of liability for contributory negligence cannot afterwards complain that the court examined its own driver's conduct and cast a proportion of blame upon him.

Cases cited (1)

Shamji v Bhatt (1965) EA 789

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.