Wakilii

Crown Beverages Ltd v Sendu (Civil Appeal No. 01 of 2005)

Supreme Court · [2006] UGSC 27 · 2006 Appeal Partly Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second appeal to the Supreme Court against a Court of Appeal decision allowing the respondent's appeal and awarding general damages in negligence
Decision
Appeal partly allowed; general damages reduced from shs.15,000,000 to shs.3,000,000

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 respondent recovered damages in negligence after drinking contaminated Mirinda soft drinks. The Court of Appeal increased his award to shs.15,000,000 general damages. On second appeal, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that an appellate court will not interfere with an award of damages unless the lower court acted on a wrong principle of law or the amount is so high or low as to be an entirely erroneous estimate. The respondent had prayed for a specific sum as if claiming special damages, the alleged permanent impotence was not proved by expert evidence, and the shs.15,000,000 figure was so high as to be an entirely erroneous estimate. The appeal partly succeeded and the award was reduced to shs.3,000,000.

Facts

The respondent bought a bottle of Mirinda Fruity soft drink from a retailer, who opened it for him. As he drank, he felt small stones on his tongue and saw dirt in the bottle; a second bottle of Mirinda Lemon on the rack also contained dirt. He reported the matter to the L.C.I Chairman and took the bottles to the Government Chemist, who analysed the contents, found a suspended substance unsafe for human consumption, and issued a report (Exhibit P3). The respondent developed nausea, vomiting and diarrhoea, was treated by a doctor, and later complained of diminishing sexual function and shrinking genitals, though he did not complete treatment or consult a neurologist due to lack of funds. He sued the appellant manufacturer for shs.30,000,000 as general damages in negligence for breach of duty. The trial court dismissed the suit; the Court of Appeal allowed his appeal and awarded shs.15,000,000.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in granting damages in respect of a head that had not been claimed.
  2. Whether the general damages of shs.15,000,000 awarded by the Court of Appeal were excessive in the circumstances.

Orders

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

Key headnotes

Damages — Appellate Interference with Award — Wrong Principle or Erroneous Estimate
An appellate court will not interfere with an award of damages 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 was entitled.
Damages — General Damages — Discretion of the Court — Distinction from Special Damages
The amount of general damages a plaintiff may be awarded is a matter for the discretion of the trial court; a claim for a specific sum is in the nature of special damages, which must be specifically pleaded and proved.
Damages — Personal Injury — Proof of Permanent Injury by Expert Evidence
Where a claimant alleges permanent injury such as permanent impotence, the assessment of damages cannot be founded on that allegation absent expert medical evidence proving the disability is likely to be permanent.

Cases cited (8)

  • Flint v Lovell [1935] 1 KB 354
  • Robert Coussens v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1999)
  • Milly Masembe v Uganda Sugar Corporation and Another (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2000)
  • Phillips vs. London South Western Railway
  • Owen v Sykes [1936] 1 KB 192
  • 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.