Kasozi & 2 Others v Peoples Transport Service (Civil Appeal 27 of 1993)

Supreme Court · [1994] UGSC 44 · 1994 Appeal Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Civil appeal from a High Court judgment dismissing a personal-injury suit (High Court at Kampala, Civil Case No. 680 of 1992, before Mukanza J.).

Decision

Appeal allowed; dismissal set aside and judgment entered for the appellants on liability (75% basis) with general damages assessed.

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 where parties to a commercial suit have entered a bona fide compromise admitting liability, the court should accept the admission and proceed to assess damages, intervening only where there is want of authority or another vitiating circumstance casting doubt on the compromise's bona fides. The trial judge had no such ground; he erred in reopening liability and in deciding the case against the appellants on a trespass issue that was neither pleaded nor raised, and on which no cross-examination was directed. The appeal was allowed, the dismissal set aside, judgment entered for the appellants on a 75% liability basis, special damages excluded as unproved, general damages assessed, and costs awarded to the appellants.

Facts

The three appellants were passengers in the respondent's bus, registration UPK 117, which collided with another vehicle at a corner on the road between Mubende and Fort Portal. The appellants alleged they suffered injuries and sued Peoples Transport Service for damages. At trial, after the appellants closed their evidence, their counsel and the respondent's counsel agreed that the respondent admitted liability to the extent of 75%, and the medical reports were tendered as exhibits by consent, leaving only the quantum of damages to be determined. The respondent called no evidence. The trial judge, however, examined the evidence, found that the passengers had not produced their tickets, held that they were trespassers in the bus not entitled to any compensation, and dismissed the suit.

Issues

Whether a trial judge may ignore an agreement of the parties compromising part of the suit by admitting liability and instead decide the case on its merits.
Whether the trial judge was entitled to reject the recorded compromise on the basis that he doubted its bona fides.
Whether the appellant passengers were trespassers not entitled to any compensation.

Orders

Appeal allowed; the first ground of appeal succeeds.
Decree dismissing the action set aside.
Judgment entered for the appellants on liability, damages to be assessed on the basis of 75% liability.
Special damages excluded for want of proof.
General damages assessed in favour of each appellant.
Costs awarded to the appellants both in the Supreme Court and in the High Court.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Compromise and Consent Judgments — Court's Power to Intervene

Where parties to a commercial suit enter into a bona fide compromise by which liability is admitted, the court should accept the admission and confine itself to assessing damages; it is not generally for the court to impose its own view of what is best for the parties.

Civil Procedure — Compromise — Grounds for Refusing to Give Effect

A court may decline to give effect to a compromise only where there is want of authority in the advocate, objection by the client, or some other vitiating circumstance casting doubt on the bona fides of the agreement; a mere preference for a different course is not a sufficient ground for intervention.

Civil Procedure — Determination on Unpleaded Issues

A court may not decide a case against a party on an issue that was neither pleaded nor raised, and on which no cross-examination was directed; doing so amounts to substituting the court's own view for the matters actually put in issue by the parties.

Damages — Special Damages — Requirement of Proof

Special damages must be specifically proved by documentary or oral evidence, or admitted by the parties; in the absence of such proof or agreement they will be excluded, even though general damages may be assessed.

Cases cited (3)

Padaus bi ve HirJI (19..) 19 E.A.C.A. 15
B...g vs ...ncham (192.) 2 K.B. (C.A.) 291 at 299 (per Atkin L.J.)
Neale v Gordon-Lennox [1902] A.C. 465

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.