Wakilii

Crown Beverages Ltd v Sendu Edwards [2006] UGSC 2

Supreme Court · 2006 Appeal Partly Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second appeal to the Supreme Court from a Court of Appeal decision in a negligence suit, challenging the quantum of general damages.
Decision
Appeal partially allowed; Court of Appeal's general damages award reduced from UGX 15,000,000 to UGX 3,000,000.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 8 (treatment unverified) 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 respondent recovered general damages for negligence after consuming a contaminated Mirinda soft drink bottled by the appellant, the Court of Appeal awarding UGX 15,000,000. On second appeal the Supreme Court restated that an appellate court will not disturb an award of damages unless the lower court applied a wrong principle of law or the sum is so high or so low as to amount to an entirely erroneous estimate of the damages to which the plaintiff is entitled. Finding no expert evidence that the respondent's injury was permanent, the Court held the UGX 15,000,000 award excessive, reduced it to UGX 3,000,000, and awarded the respondent one-third of the costs in all courts. The appeal partially succeeded.

Facts

The respondent bought a bottle of Mirinda Fruity soft drink from a retailer, who opened it for him. While drinking, he felt small stones on his tongue and noticed dirt in the bottle; a second bottle of Mirinda Lemon on the shop's rack also contained dirt. He reported the matter to the local LC1 chairman and took the bottles to the Government Chemist, who analysed the contents and found a suspended substance unsafe for human consumption. The respondent later developed nausea, vomiting and diarrhoea and consulted a doctor at Busabala Clinic, but could not complete treatment for lack of funds. He complained of weakness in his genitals and was referred to a neurologist whom he never consulted. He sued the appellant, the bottler, for UGX 30,000,000 in general damages for negligence. The trial court dismissed the suit for failure to prove breach of the duty of care. The Court of Appeal allowed his appeal and awarded UGX 15,000,000 general damages. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court contending the award was excessive.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in granting damages in respect of a head of damage that had not been claimed.
  2. Whether the general damages of UGX 15,000,000 awarded by the Court of Appeal were excessive, such that the Supreme Court should interfere with the award.

Orders

  • Appeal partially allowed.
  • Judgment and orders of the Court of Appeal set aside and substituted.
  • Award of UGX 3,000,000 general damages to the respondent.
  • Award of one-third of the costs in the Supreme Court and in the courts below to the respondent.

Key headnotes

Damages & Quantum — Appellate Interference with Awards — Wrong Principle or Erroneous Estimate
An appellate court will not interfere with an award of damages made by a lower court unless that court acted upon a wrong principle of law, or the amount awarded is so high or so low as to make it an entirely erroneous estimate of the damages to which the plaintiff is entitled.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Discretion and Pleading
The amount of general damages a plaintiff may be awarded is a matter of discretion for the trial court and need not be specifically pleaded, unlike special damages, which must be pleaded and proved.
Tort Law — Negligence — Personal Injury — Proof of Permanence of Injury
Where there is no expert medical evidence proving that a personal injury is or is likely to become permanent, an award of damages assessed on the footing of a permanent disability is excessive.

Cases cited (9)

  • Flint v Lovell [1935] 1 KB 354
  • Robert Coussens v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1999)
  • Milly Masembe v Sugar Corporation of Uganda and Another (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2000)
  • Phillips v London South Western Railway Co (1879) 5 QBD 78
  • Owen v Sykes [1936] 1 KB 192
  • Muljibhai vs. the ParticularAnor (1944) EACA
  • Mitdford Bowker (1947) 14 EACA 20
  • Watson v Powles [1968] 1 QB 596
  • Obonyo v Municipal Council of Kisumu [1971] EA 91
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.