Wakilii

Agnes Mukasa V Akamba (U) Ltd (Civil Suit No. 197 of 1990 ) (Civil Suit No. 197 of 1990)

High Court · [1999] UGHC 19 · 1999 Judgment for Defendant AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit claiming general and special damages arising from a motor accident
Decision
Suit dismissed for want of cause of action against the defendant — plaintiff brought action against the wrong party

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 2 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 plaintiff's suit was dismissed because she sued the wrong party. Although the defendant remained the registered owner of the motor vehicle in its log book, it had sold the vehicle to a third party before the accident. The court held that the presumption of ownership under s.49 of the Traffic and Road Safety Act 1970 had been rebutted by evidence showing the sale. The defendant owed no duty of care to the plaintiff as the driver was not its employee, servant or agent. The defendant was not awarded costs due to violation of civil procedure rules.

Outcome

Suit dismissed for want of cause of action against the defendant — plaintiff brought action against the wrong party

Facts

On 10 October 1989, the plaintiff Agnes Mukasa, a 42-year-old teacher, boarded a bus (registration number UXS 106) at Kampala heading for Masaka with her husband. The driver drove recklessly at high speed with improper lights. Near Lukaya, the bus collided with a stationary lorry parked on the left side of the road and fell into a swamp. The plaintiff sustained severe injuries; her left leg was amputated below the knee. She was hospitalized for two months at Kitovu Hospital and incurred medical expenses. The bus was registered in the name of Akamba (U) Limited. However, evidence showed that Akamba had sold the bus to Joy Kusiima in 1987, who in turn sold it to Gasso Transport Services in November 1987. Neither sale was registered with the licensing officer. The driver, Wilson Kamya, was identified in the police report as being from Gasso Transport Services and was not an employee of Akamba (U) Limited.

Issues

  1. Whether there is any cause of action against the defendant.
  2. Whether the defendant was negligent.
  3. What damages is the plaintiff entitled to if any.

Orders

  • Suit dismissed.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Vicarious Liability — Employer Liability for Servant's Acts — Necessity of Master-Servant or Principal-Agent Relationship
In order to fix vicarious liability on an employer for the negligence of an employee, the plaintiff must prove that the employee was, when he committed the negligent act, acting in the course of his employment and that there existed a relationship of master and servant or principal and agent between the owner of the vehicle and the driver.
Motor Vehicle Registration Book — Not Conclusive Evidence of Ownership — Rebuttable Presumption under s.49 Traffic and Road Safety Act
The person in whose name a motor vehicle is registered is presumed to be the owner under s.49 of the Traffic and Road Safety Act 1970, but this presumption can be rebutted by evidence. A motor vehicle registration book is not a document of title, and registration does not conclusively establish ownership.
Pleadings — Requirement to Raise Defences — Failure to Plead Material Facts — Order 6 r.5 and r.6
A defendant must raise by pleading all matters which show the action not to be maintainable, as required by Order 6 r.5 of the Civil Procedure Rules. A certain amount of detail must be given in pleadings to ensure clearness and to prevent the other party from being taken by surprise. Failure to comply with pleading rules may have consequences on the award of costs.
Negligence — Cause of Action — Duty of Care — Necessity of Relationship Between Defendant and Plaintiff
Before a cause of action in negligence can lie against a defendant, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care, that the duty was breached, and that the breach caused the plaintiff's loss. In the absence of proof that a motor vehicle belonged to the defendant or was being driven by its employee, servant or agent in the course of employment, the defendant owes no duty of care to passengers and no cause of action lies.
Special Damages — Proof — Pleading and Proving Special Damages
Special damages must not only be pleaded but also strictly proved. Where receipts or other documentary evidence of expenditure are not produced, the court may accept oral evidence where it is corroborated and credible, but the plaintiff bears the burden of proof.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (10)

  • HCCS No.1010/90 Moses Bulenzi vs. Serunjogi & Anr. (Unreported)
  • Matayo Musoke v Alibhai Garage Limited [1960] 4 EA 31
  • Mrs Mkaidaga v Asgaralli Gulam Hussen (1922) ULR 107
  • Bikwatinzo v Railway Corporation [1971] EA 82
  • Kampala City Council v Nakaye [1972] EA 446
  • Kananura Melvin Engineers v Connie Kabanda Civil Appeal 31 1992
  • Joseph Kayanja vs. G.G.A Holdges and Anor. HCB 58/66 HCCS 833/64
  • Solomon Nyerema & p.r v Kilembe Mines Ltd HCCS 467/72
  • HCCS 695/70 Fredrick Nswemu v Attorney General
  • HCCS 1464/86 James Katende and 2 others vs. Uganda Railways Corporation

Cases citing this judgment (2)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Agnes Mukasa V Akamba (U) Ltd (Civil Suit No. 197 of 1990 ) (Civil Suit No. 197 of 1990) [1999] UGHC 19 (30 April 1999)
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.