Wakilii

Aliganyira Richard v Balemesa Ausi Juma and Another (Civil Suit 14 of 2017)

High Court · [2022] UGHC 258 · 2022 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for negligence arising from motor vehicle collision, determined by default judgment after defendants failed to appear
Decision
Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff with total monetary award of UGX 136 million plus interest and costs

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

Held that the first defendant driver was negligent in driving too fast on the wrong side of the road at night in a busy trading area, breaching his duty of care to other road users. The second defendant employer was vicariously liable. The plaintiff was awarded UGX 35 million for the written-off vehicle, UGX 60 million as mesne profits for loss of use, UGX 1 million special damages for towing costs, and UGX 40 million general damages, all with 8% interest per annum.

Outcome

Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff with total monetary award of UGX 136 million plus interest and costs

Facts

On 3 August 2016 at approximately 10:00 pm along Fort Portal-Hima road between Rugendabara Trading Centre and Hima town council, the plaintiff's motor vehicle UAV 506A, a Mitsubishi Canter carrying sand, was involved in a head-on collision with an IVECO Frankun truck heavily loaded with limestone. The truck was owned by the second defendant and driven by the first defendant in the course of employment. The collision occurred when the first defendant drove recklessly and too fast, over-speeding in a busy trading centre, driving in the wrong lane, and failing to swerve, brake or stop. The plaintiff's vehicle was thrown off the road by the impact while the defendants' vehicle remained on course 13 meters from the point of impact. The plaintiff's vehicle was written off. Three persons including the plaintiff's employees died in the accident. The defendants failed to appear despite proof of service, and default judgment was entered.

Issues

  1. Whether the Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the accident.
  2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to compensation to the tune of UGX 67,600,000 and UGX 2 million as mesne profits.
  3. What are the remedies available to the parties.

Orders

  • Award of UGX 35 million as compensation for the vehicle at interest rate of 8% per annum from date of cause of action until payment in full.
  • Award of UGX 60 million as mesne profits at interest rate of 8% per annum from date of cause of action until payment in full.
  • Award of UGX 1 million as special damages at interest rate of 8% per annum from date of cause of action until payment in full.
  • Award of UGX 40 million as general damages at interest rate of 8% per annum from date of delivery of judgment until payment in full.
  • Award of costs for this suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Negligence — Elements — Duty of Care, Breach, and Damage
To establish negligence, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care, that the defendant breached that duty, and that the breach resulted in damage to the plaintiff for which the defendant and no other is liable.
Motor Vehicle Accidents — Vicarious Liability of Employer
An employer is vicariously liable for the negligence of an employee driver who causes an accident while driving the employer's vehicle in the course of business for the benefit of the owner.
Motor Vehicle Damage — Written-Off Vehicle — Replacement Value
Where a motor vehicle is written off in an accident caused by the defendant's negligence, the plaintiff is entitled to the full replacement value of a similar reconditioned vehicle rather than the cost of uneconomical repairs.
Mesne Profits — Loss of Use of Income-Generating Chattel
Loss to the owner of the use of a chattel while out of commission owing to its having been damaged through the negligence of another is actionable and forms a head of damage in a suit for negligence, recoverable as mesne profits where the chattel was used as a source of income.
General Damages — Assessment Principles
In assessing general damages, courts are guided by the value of the subject matter, the economic inconvenience the party has been put through, and the nature and extent of the breach or injury suffered, including future loss as well as damages for past loss and suffering.

Cases cited (3)

  • Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562
  • Khanna v Samuel [1973] 1 EA 225
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Deo Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 293

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Aliganyira Richard v Balemesa Ausi Juma and Another (Civil Suit 14 of 2017) [2022] UGHC 258 (2 June 2022)
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.