Wakilii

Milly Masembe v Sugar Corporation and Another (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2000)

Supreme Court · [2000] UGSC 44 · 2000 Appeal Partly Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second appeal to the Supreme Court from a Court of Appeal decision reversing a High Court judgment in a personal-injury negligence suit, with a cross-appeal.
Decision
Court of Appeal judgment set aside; trial Court judgment restored with variations — respondents jointly and severally liable for 40% of the special and general damages, with loss of earnings increased to five months.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full 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 Court of Appeal wrongly interfered with the trial judge's findings of fact, since the trial judge had properly evaluated conflicting evidence and believed independent police witnesses that the broken-down tractor/trailer was left on the road unlit and unattended. However, the trial judge under-apportioned the mini-bus driver's blame; the Court re-apportioned liability to 60% mini-bus driver and 40% tractor driver, so the respondents are liable for only 40% of the damages. On cross-appeal, the Court held the respondents jointly and severally liable (not in equal shares), increased loss of earnings to five months, and left the 10% interest rate undisturbed. Appeal and cross-appeal each partly succeeded.

Facts

On 28 December 1993 at about 8.00 p.m., the appellant, a businesswoman, was a passenger in a mini-bus taxi (No. UPS 847) travelling from Kampala towards Jinja. Near Namagunga Secondary School the mini-bus collided with the rear of the first respondent's stationary tractor-drawn trailer, which was loaded with sugar cane. The tractor, driven earlier that day by the second respondent (the first respondent's employee acting in the course of employment), had broken down and was left on the road. The appellant suffered serious injuries, was hospitalised for two months, depended on crutches for a further three months, and lost property including money and films. The central factual dispute was whether the broken-down vehicle was left unlit, unattended and without warning signs on the carriageway, or whether tree branches and reflectors gave adequate warning. The trial judge believed the appellant's independent police witnesses that there were no warning signs and that the vehicle obstructed the lane, finding the tractor driver 80% and the mini-bus driver 20% to blame.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court of Appeal, as the first appellate court, was justified in interfering with the trial judge's findings of fact on the cause of the accident.
  2. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the mini-bus driver was solely to blame for the accident, and how liability should be apportioned.
  3. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to consider the appellant's cross-appeal.
  4. Whether, given the first respondent's vicarious liability, the trial judge erred in ordering the two defendants to pay the decretal sum in equal shares rather than jointly and severally.
  5. Whether the award for loss of earnings should have covered the full five months the appellant was kept from work rather than only two months.
  6. Whether the trial judge wrongly exercised his discretion in awarding interest at 10% per annum on the decretal amount.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed to partially succeed; cross-appeal also partially succeeds.
  • Judgment and orders of the Court of Appeal set aside and substituted by the judgment and orders of the trial Court with variations.
  • First and second respondents jointly and severally liable to the appellant for only 40% of all the special and general damages awarded.
  • All awards for special damages to carry interest from the date of filing suit till payment in full.
  • The award for general damages to carry interest from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Appellant to have the costs of the appeal and the costs in the court below.

Key headnotes

Negligence — Highway — Unlit, unattended broken-down vehicle left on the road
Leaving an unlit vehicle on the road unattended and without any warning that it has broken down is negligence on the part of the person who leaves it in that position.
Appeals — Second appeal — Powers of the Supreme Court to re-evaluate evidence
On a second appeal the Supreme Court is not required, except in the clearest of cases, to re-evaluate the evidence as a first appellate court; it is sufficient to decide whether the first appellate court applied or failed to apply the principles governing re-evaluation of evidence.
Appeals — First appellate court — Interference with findings of fact based on witness credibility
A first appellate court is not bound to follow a trial judge's findings of fact and may interfere only where the trial judge clearly failed to take account of particular circumstances or probabilities material to the evidence, or where his impression of a witness's demeanour is inconsistent with the evidence generally.
Negligence — Apportionment of liability — Appellate interference
An appellate court will not interfere with a trial court's apportionment of liability save in exceptional cases, such as where there is an error of principle or the apportionment is manifestly erroneous.
Vicarious liability — Master and servant — Joint and several liability
Where a master is vicariously liable for the negligence of a servant acting in the course of his employment, the master and servant are liable jointly and severally for the damages, and it is an error to order them to pay the decretal sum in equal shares.
Special damages — Loss of earnings — Proof and period of recovery
Special damages such as loss of earnings must be specifically pleaded and proved, and are recoverable for the entire period the injured party was kept away from work by the injuries sustained.
Interest — General versus special damages — Date from which interest runs
Where damages must be assessed by the court, interest on general damages runs only from the date of judgment, whereas interest on liquidated sums or special damages runs from the date of filing the suit.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Judicature Act 1996 s.7(1)
  • Judicature Act 1996 s.8
  • Supreme Court Rules r.29(1)
  • Supreme Court Rules r.1(3)
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.29(1)

Cases cited (29)

  • Pandya v R [1957] EA 336
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Habre International Co v Ebrahim Alarakhia Kassam and Others (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1999)
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v. Bank of Uganda, Civil Appeal No ... of 1998 (SCU) (unreported)
  • Bogere Moses and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Bogere Charles v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1998)
  • Kairu v Uganda [1978] HCB 123
  • Selle and Another v Associated Motor Boat Company Ltd [1968] EA 123
  • Coghlan v Cumberland [1898] 1 Ch 704 (CA)
  • Watt (or Thomas) v Thomas [1947] AC 484
  • Powell v Streatham Manor Nursing Home [1935] AC 243 (HL)
  • Benmax v Austin Motor Co Ltd [1955] AC 370 (HL)
  • Abdul Hamid Saif v Ali Mohammed Sholan (1955) 22 EACA 270
  • Trevor Price and Another v Raymond Kelsall [1957] EA 752
  • Peters v Sunday Post Ltd [1958] EA 424
  • Khambi and Another v Mahithi and Another [1969] EA 70
  • Shariff v Sethma [1963] EA 239
  • Brown v Thompson [1968] 2 All ER 708
  • Tant v Chitty [1931] All ER (Rep) 826
  • Andereya Sinzimusi v Gomba Bus Services (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1979)
  • Muwonge v Attorney General [1967] EA 17
  • Patel v Yafesi and Others [1972] EA 31
  • Harbutt's Plasticine Ltd v Wayne Tank and Pump Co Ltd [1970] 1 QB 447
  • Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Co Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd (No.2) [1970] EA 469
  • SIETCO v. Noble Builders (U) Ltd
  • Prem Lata v Mbiyu [1965] EA 592
  • J.K. Patel v Spear Motors Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1991)
  • Geraldine Namubiru and Another v Uganda Transport Company (1975) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 29 of 1994)
  • Christopher Kiggundu and Another v Uganda Transport Company (1975) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1993)
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.