Musisi & 3 Others v Sietco (U) Limited (Civil Appeal 24 of 1993)

Supreme Court · [1994] UGSC 31 · 1994 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Civil appeal from High Court dismissal of a personal-injury suit

Decision

Appeal dismissed; the High Court's dismissal of the personal-injury suit stands

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

The Supreme Court held that the appellants failed to prove they sustained the injuries pleaded. Their testimony was contradictory and at variance with their pleadings, so they were taken to have abandoned those pleadings. The evidential burden does not shift to a defendant unless the plaintiff first adduces cogent and credible evidence, which was absent here. Professor Ssekabunga's expert medical evidence lacked a scientific base — no clinical or radiological records — and rested on hearsay and superficial examination, so it was rightly rejected. Without proof of injury no general damages could be awarded, making the quantum ground unnecessary to decide. Appeal dismissed with costs.

Facts

The four appellants were travelling in a bus belonging to Uganda Transport Company (1975) Ltd when it was involved in an accident with the respondent's road grader at Nakawa along the Kampala/Jinja Road in May 1988. They sued the respondent and the transport company for general and special damages for personal injuries. The trial judge found the respondent solely responsible for the accident but held that the appellants had failed to prove they were fare-paying passengers or that they sustained the injuries claimed. Each appellant's testimony about his injuries differed materially from his pleadings, which had alleged 'multiple fractures', and the medical evidence of Professor Ssekabunga was unsupported by hospital records, being based on his own superficial examination and on what the appellants told him. The suit was dismissed with costs, and the appellants appealed.

Issues

Whether the appellants proved that they sustained the injuries pleaded so as to justify an award of damages.
Whether the evidential burden shifted to the respondent to disprove the appellants' claim that they were injured in the accident.
Whether the trial judge erred in rejecting the expert medical evidence of Professor Ssekabunga.

Orders

Appeal dismissed.
Costs of the appeal and in the court below to the respondent.

Key headnotes

Burden of Proof — Shifting of the Evidential Burden

The evidential burden does not shift to the defendant unless the plaintiff has first adduced cogent and credible evidence on the issue.

Expert Evidence — Requirement of a Scientific Basis

An expert opinion that is not supported by a scientific base such as clinical or radiological records, and which rests on hearsay and a superficial examination, is of little or no evidential value and may properly be rejected.

Pleadings — Variance Between Pleadings and Evidence

Where a party's evidence is materially at variance with the particulars pleaded, the party is taken to have abandoned those pleadings and fails to establish the matter so pleaded.

Personal Injury — Proof of Injury as a Condition of Damages

No award of general damages for personal injury can be made unless the claimant first proves the injuries said to have been sustained in the accident.

Legislation cited (1)

Rules of the Supreme Court r.97

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.