Wakilii

Abednego Absolom Ongom v Amos Kahero (Civil Suit 231 of 1993)

High Court · [1995] UGHC 82 · 1995 Judgment for Plaintiff (Partial) AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff for special and general damages, with interest and costs, but claim for vehicle loss dismissed.

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains 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 defendant's driver was wholly negligent in attempting to overtake at an unsafe location at high speed. The defendant is vicariously liable as the driver was a servant acting within the course of employment. The plaintiff proved no contributory negligence. The plaintiff is entitled to special damages for medical expenses and lost allowances, and general damages for personal injuries, but failed to prove the claim for loss of the motor vehicle at the pleaded quantum.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff for special and general damages, with interest and costs, but claim for vehicle loss dismissed.

Facts

On 17 August 1992, the plaintiff, a Member of Parliament and Chairman of Uganda Transport Corporation, was driving his Volkswagen Passat (UPE 377) from Gulu to Kampala. Near Bombo town, after passing a roadblock, he encountered a Toyota Hiace (UPJ 120) coming from the opposite direction. The defendant's vehicle (UXV 688) attempted to overtake UPJ 120 at high speed on a sharp corner with a big fall on one side and a wall on the other. The plaintiff hooted and braked to avoid collision. The defendant's driver veered right to pass between the two vehicles but collided with the plaintiff's car. The plaintiff sustained a comminuted fracture of the distal tibia communicating with the ankle joint, a medial malleolus fracture, and multiple wounds. He was admitted to Nsambya Hospital for five months, underwent surgery with screws inserted, wore a plaster cast for four months, and continued physiotherapy. His permanent disability was assessed at 60%. The defendant admitted the accident occurred and that Godfrey Obabazi was his driver, but denied liability on grounds he was not the registered owner and alleged contributory negligence. The defendant withdrew instructions from counsel during trial and failed to appear, leading to ex parte proceedings.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant's driver was negligent in causing the motor vehicle accident.
  2. Whether the defendant is vicariously liable for the negligence of the driver.
  3. Whether the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.
  4. Whether the defendant is the legal owner of vehicle UXV 088 for the purposes of vicarious liability.
  5. What damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover.

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the plaintiff.
  • Defendant to pay special damages of Shs. 1,425,000/= (comprising Shs. 1,240,000/= medical treatment, Shs. 180,000/= lost allowances, and Shs. 5,000/= police report).
  • Defendant to pay general damages of Shs. 5,000,000/= for personal injuries.
  • Interest at court rate on special damages from date of filing suit until payment in full.
  • Interest at court rate on general damages from date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Defendant to pay taxed costs of the suit.
  • Claim for Shs. 30,000,000/= for loss of motor vehicle dismissed.
  • Claim for Shs. 269,000/= transport costs dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Negligence — Duty of Care — Road Users
Any particular user of a highway owes a duty to any other particular user not to do or omit anything which he might reasonably anticipate might injure the other, or at least where such person might reasonably be expected to be injured by a failure to take care.
Negligence — Standard of Care — Overtaking
A driver who attempts to overtake a leading vehicle on a sharp corner at high speed when it is not safe to do so, and fails to have due regard to other road users, is wholly in default of the duty owed to other road users.
Vicarious Liability — Master and Servant Relationship
A defendant can only be held vicariously liable for the negligence of a driver if the relationship of master and servant is established and the servant was acting in the course of employment at the time of the tort.
Contributory Negligence — Burden of Proof
The onus is on the defendant to prove that the plaintiff's contributory negligence was a substantial or material co-operating cause of the accident.
Sale of Goods — Transfer of Title — Instalment Payments
Under Section 26(2) of the Sale of Goods Ordinance, a buyer who has agreed to buy goods and obtained possession with the seller's consent becomes the owner even though full payment has not been made, unless the contract is a hire purchase agreement in the strict sense where no purchase occurs until the hirer exercises the option.
Damages for Destruction of Goods — Measure
In cases of destruction of goods, the normal measure of damages is the market value of the goods destroyed at the time and place of destruction. A plaintiff is not entitled to make a profit out of damage caused by another and cannot claim the cost of a new vehicle to replace a used one, but only an award that enables replacement with another vehicle comparable in make and age.
Special Damages — Proof Required
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. Where a plaintiff fails to adduce evidence establishing the quantum of special damages claimed, the claim must fail.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Traffic Ordinance (1951) s.5(1)
  • Sale of Goods Ordinance s.26(2)

Cases cited (16)

  • Departed Asians Custodian Board v Issa Bukenya t/a New Mars War House (Civil Appeal No. 26 of 1992)
  • Matayo Musoke v Alibhai Garage Ltd (1960) EA
  • Helby v Mathews (1895) AC 471
  • Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) AC 562
  • Challoner v William & Groney (1975) 1 Lloyd's R
  • Jovelyn Barpgare v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 28 of 1992)
  • Interfreight Forwarders (U) Ltd v East Africa Development Bank (Civil Appeal No. 73 of 1992)
  • Moore v D.E.R. Ltd (1971) 1 WLR 1476
  • Darbishire v Warren (1963) 1 WLR 1067
  • Express Transport Co Ltd v BAT Tanzania Ltd (1968) EA 445
  • Kibimba Rice Company Ltd v UMAR Salim (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1988)
  • Shamji v Bhatt (1965) EA 789
  • Matiya Byabalema and 2 others v Uganda Transport Co (1975) Ltd
  • Kyambabadde v Uganda Electricity Board (High Court Civil Case No. 1 of 1990)
  • Godfrey Kateregga v U.E.B. (High Court Civil Case No. 95(B) of 1989)
  • Christopher Kiggundu v UTO (1975) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1995)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Abednego Absolom Ongom v Amos Kahero (Civil Suit 231 of 1993) [1995] UGHC 82 (18 October 1995)
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.