Wakilii

Impressa Infortunato Federici v Irene Nabwire (Civil Appeal 3 of 2000)

Supreme Court · [2001] UGSC 1 · 2001 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second appeal to the Supreme Court from a Court of Appeal decision on costs (and on the Court of Appeal's reduction of general damages).
Decision
Appeal dismissed; costs to the respondent in the Supreme Court and the courts below; by majority no order made on general damages, leaving the Court of Appeal's reduced award of Shs. 20,000,000/= in place.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 1 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

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal against the Court of Appeal's order that each party bear its own costs. Costs are discretionary under s.27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act; although costs ordinarily follow the event, partial success — especially where minimal, technical, or attributable to the successful party's own conduct — can be good reason to deny costs to a successful party, and the Court of Appeal had not acted on a wrong principle. On general damages, Mulenga and Kanyeihamba JJSC held the Court of Appeal had wrongly reduced the High Court's award and would restore it despite the absence of a cross-appeal; Oder, Karokora and Mukasa-Kikonyogo JJSC declined to intervene without a cross-appeal. By majority, no order was made on general damages.

Facts

On 15 October 1995 the appellant company's pick-up, driven by its employee in the course of employment, knocked down Irene Nabwire, then seven years old, as she walked along Cathedral Avenue in Mbale. She sustained a compound fracture of the left femur and a closed head injury causing aphasia, shock and pain, was admitted unconscious to Mbale Hospital, and lost her hearing and speech. She sued the appellant in negligence through her father as next friend. Midway through the High Court trial the appellant admitted liability, leaving only the assessment of quantum. The trial judge awarded Shs. 25,000,000/= general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenities, plus Shs. 5,980,000/= special damages, interest and costs. The Court of Appeal reduced general damages to Shs. 20,000,000/= as excessive and partly based on inadmissible hearsay (a medical report, ID2), and ordered each party to bear its own costs. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court only against the costs order.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the appellant's appeal had succeeded only partially.
  2. Whether the appellant, as the successful party in the Court of Appeal, was entitled to costs of that appeal, and whether the order that each party bear its own costs was a proper exercise of discretion under s.27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.
  3. Whether the Supreme Court could intervene to set aside the Court of Appeal's reduction of general damages where neither party had cross-appealed against that order.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs of the appeal, and in the courts below, to the respondent.
  • By majority, no order made regarding general damages (the Court of Appeal's reduced award stands).

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Costs — Discretion under s.27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act
The award of costs is in the discretion of the court under s.27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act; although costs ordinarily follow the event, the court may for good reason order otherwise, and an appellate court will not interfere unless the discretion was exercised on a wrong principle or without good reason.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Partial Success as Good Reason to Deny Costs to a Successful Party
Where an appeal succeeds only partially, and particularly where the success is minimal, merely technical, or attributable to the successful party's own conduct, that partial success can constitute good reason for denying costs to the otherwise successful party.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Extent of Success Measured by Grounds Decided, Not Relief Obtained
For the purpose of awarding costs, the extent of an appeal's success is not measured solely by the relief obtained; the court's decisions on the individual grounds of appeal are a relevant consideration in determining whether the appeal succeeded wholly or partially.
Damages & Quantum — Appellate Interference with a Trial Court's Assessment of Damages
An appellate court may interfere with a trial court's assessment of damages only where the trial court applied a wrong principle of law — taking into account an irrelevant factor or failing to consider a material one — or where the amount is so inordinately high or low as to be a wholly erroneous estimate; a finding that the award is merely 'on the higher side' is not a sufficient ground for interference.
Evidence — Facts Admitted by Consent — Hearsay Received by Consent Need Not Be Severed
A fact which is admitted, even if adduced through hearsay, need not be otherwise proved; evidence received on the record by the consent of the parties cannot later be severed and ignored as inadmissible hearsay, especially where the party now objecting had itself precluded direct proof by admitting liability.
Civil Procedure — Appellate Jurisdiction — Intervention Absent a Cross-Appeal
Where a respondent has not cross-appealed under Rule 87(4) of the Rules of the Supreme Court against the reduction of damages, the majority held that the court should not of its own motion reverse that order to the prejudice of a party who has not been heard, as doing so would offend the audi alteram partem principle of natural justice; the minority would intervene in exceptional circumstances to correct an illegality or manifest injustice.

Legislation cited (6)

  • Civil Procedure Act (Cap. 65) s.27(1)
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 11 Rule 6
  • Judicature Statute 1996 s.6(5)
  • Judicature Statute s.8
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.87(4)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.93

Cases cited (11)

  • Uganda Electricity Board v G.M. Musoke (Civil Appeal No. 30 of 1993)
  • Imprestirling Imprest Federiki v Haji Abdu Karimu Lugemwa (Civil Appeal No. 31 of 1993)
  • Kanobolic Group of Companies (U) Ltd v Sugar Corporation of Uganda Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 15 of 1994)
  • Interfreight Forwarders (U) Ltd v East African Development Bank (Civil Appeal No. 33 of 1999)
  • Potgieter v Stumberg and Anor (1967) EA 609
  • Bhogal v Burbidge & Anor (1975) EA 285
  • Foods and Beverages Ltd v Israel Musisi Openya (Civil Appeal No. 32 of 1992)
  • Kiska Ltd v De Angelis (1969) EA 6
  • Henry H. Ilanga v M. Manyoka (1961) EA 705
  • Uganda Development Bank v Muganga Construction Company (1981) HCB 35
  • Donald Campbell v Pollak [1927] AC 732
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.