Christopher Kiggundu and Another v Uganda Transport Co. (1975) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 7 93)

Supreme Court · [1993] UGSC 63 · 1993 Appeal Partly Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Civil appeal to the Supreme Court against the High Court's assessment of damages (liability having been admitted in the court below)

Decision

Appeal partly allowed; general damages increased for both appellants and special damages for lost cash awarded to the first appellant, with interest and costs

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

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

On assessment of damages following an admitted bus-accident liability, the Supreme Court held the trial judge's general damages awards inordinately low and increased them from Shs 5.5 million to Shs 10 million for the first appellant and from Shs 600,000 to Shs 2 million for the second. Special damages must be strictly proved: the claims for a watch and shoes failed, but the cash stolen from the first appellant while unconscious was a foreseeable consequence of the accident and recoverable once the loss was established. Loss of earnings, being special damages requiring strict proof, was vague and rightly rejected. The court also held that medical evidence of the second appellant's fracture should have been accepted over his lay description.

Facts

On 27 March 1989 the two appellants were travelling as fare-paying passengers in the respondent's bus from Kampala to Lira when it overturned near Nakasongola. The first appellant sustained a crush injury to the left leg, which was amputated above the knee, leaving him with 60% permanent disability; he was 42 years old. The second appellant sustained a fractured right femur and a sprained right shoulder, complicated by wasting of the thigh muscles and a shortened, permanently limping leg. In the High Court the respondent admitted liability, so the suit proceeded only on assessment of damages. The trial judge awarded the first appellant Shs 5.5 million and the second appellant Shs 600,000 in general damages, disallowed the first appellant's special damages for cash (Shs 200,000), a watch (Shs 25,000) and shoes (Shs 15,000) for want of strict proof, and rejected both appellants' loss-of-earnings claims. The first appellant said he was carrying the cash to buy groundnuts for resale and lost it while unconscious after the accident. The appellants appealed against the adequacy of the awards.

Issues

Whether the trial judge's award of general damages to the appellants was inordinately low.
Whether the trial judge erred in failing to award the first appellant special damages for cash, a watch and a pair of shoes lost in the accident.
Whether the loss of earnings claimed by the appellants was recoverable absent strict proof.
Whether the trial judge erred in finding that the second appellant had not proved a fractured femur.

Orders

Grounds 1 and 3 of the appeal allowed.
Ground 2 of the appeal succeeds only in part.
Award of general damages to the first appellant set aside and Shs 10 million substituted.
Award of general damages to the second appellant set aside and Shs 2 million substituted.
First appellant awarded special damages for the cash lost as a result of the accident.
General damages to carry interest at court rate from the date of judgment.
Special damages awarded to the first plaintiff to carry interest at commercial rate from the date of filing the suit.
Respondent to pay the appellants the costs of the appeal.

Key headnotes

Damages — Special Damages — Requirement of Specific Pleading and Strict Proof

Special damages must be specifically claimed and strictly proved; a claimant who fails to adduce evidence such as receipts, descriptions or values to establish items claimed cannot recover them.

Damages — Loss of Earnings — Must Be Pleaded and Proved as Special Damages

Loss of earnings must be claimed as special damages and proved strictly; a vague, unparticularised assertion of monthly earnings, even if unchallenged, is insufficient to sustain such a claim.

Negligence — Remoteness — Foreseeability of Theft from an Unconscious Accident Victim

The loss of cash and property stripped from an accident victim while he lies unconscious is a foreseeable consequence of the negligent driving, for which the driver or his master is liable to pay special damages once the loss is established.

Damages — General Damages — Appellate Interference and Working Life Expectancy

An appellate court will set aside a general damages award that is inordinately low and substitute a proper figure; for the purpose of calculating damages the normal working life expectancy is taken to be 50 to 55 years.

Evidence — Medical Evidence — Weight Over a Lay Claimant's Self-Description of Injuries

Where a medical report classifies a claimant's injuries, that medical evidence should be accepted by the court in preference to the claimant's own lay description, the doctor being in the best position to classify the injuries.

Legislation cited (1)

Rules of the Supreme Court r.97

Cases cited (1)

Bhogal v Burbidge & Another [1975] EA 286

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.