Wakilii

Atto v Waibi and Another (Civil Suit No. 26 of 2013)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 114 · 2023 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for damages arising from negligence in a road traffic accident
Decision
Judgment entered for the Plaintiff with damages, interest, and costs awarded

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 3 (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 3 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations rising — 3 citing cases on record, 3 in the most recent three data years. 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 High Court held that the plaintiff proved on the balance of probabilities that she was knocked by the 1st defendant driving the 2nd defendant's vehicle in the course of employment. The 1st defendant was negligent in driving at excessive speed on a murram road and failing to negotiate a turn safely, knocking the plaintiff from behind. The 2nd defendant was vicariously liable for the negligent acts of its employee. The plaintiff was not contributorily negligent. The court awarded UGX 2,729,700 in special damages and UGX 100,000,000 in general damages, with interest and costs.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the Plaintiff with damages, interest, and costs awarded

Facts

On 25 January 2012 at approximately 7:30 pm, the plaintiff, a 34-year-old businesswoman, was walking home along the left side of the road from Gulu Town to Pece Labour Line. The 1st defendant, driving motor vehicle UAQ 692 W belonging to the 2nd defendant (UMEME), was travelling along Acholi Road and made a right turn onto Labour Line Road. The vehicle was travelling at high speed and failed to negotiate the turn properly, veering to the far left edge of the road and knocking the plaintiff from behind. The plaintiff lost consciousness and was taken to Lacor Hospital by the 1st defendant and his colleague, Eng. Opwonya, both UMEME employees in uniform. The vehicle was carrying electrical wires and the employees stated they were on their way to repair an electricity pole. The plaintiff sustained spinal cord injuries requiring her to wear a corset for life, was advised not to lift more than five kilograms, and was medically advised against further pregnancies. The 1st defendant was subsequently convicted in the Chief Magistrate's Court of reckless driving and causing grievous harm, pleading guilty and being fined UGX 1,200,000.

Issues

  1. Whether there was an accident involving the 2nd Defendant's motor vehicle Reg. No. UAQ 692 W, and if so, whether the Plaintiff was the victim of the accident?
  2. Whether the 1st Defendant as the driver of the Motor vehicle Registration No. UAQ 692 W, was acting in the course of his employment?
  3. Whether the 1st Defendant was negligent?
  4. Whether the 2nd Defendant is vicariously liable to the Plaintiff?
  5. Whether the Plaintiff was contributorily negligent?
  6. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the Plaintiff against the Defendants.
  • Special damages of UGX 2,729,700 awarded.
  • General damages of UGX 100,000,000 awarded.
  • Interest on special damages at 15% per annum from 14 August 2013 until full payment.
  • Interest on general damages at 8% per annum from 28 April 2023 until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the Plaintiff, to be taxed.

Rules and key headnotes

Negligence — Duty of Care — Motor Vehicle Drivers
A driver of a motor vehicle is under a duty to take reasonable care for the safety of other traffic on the road, and once the possibility of danger emerging is reasonably apparent and no precautions are taken by the driver, then the driver is negligent, notwithstanding that the other road user is in breach of some traffic regulations or even negligent.
Negligence — Res Ipsa Loquitur — Application
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies where negligence is inferred from the very nature of the accident in the absence of direct evidence on how the defendant behaved, and once pleaded, the evidential burden shifts to the defendant to provide an explanation consistent with an absence of negligence.
Vicarious Liability — Course of Employment
A master is liable for tortious acts committed by a servant in the course of the servant's employment. For vicarious liability to attach, there must exist a relationship between the party and the person who did the negligent act, and the act must have been done in the course of employment and not when the person was acting on a frolic of his own.
Contributory Negligence — Burden of Proof
Where a defendant pleads contributory negligence, the defendant bears the burden of proving it. Where circumstances of the accident give rise to an inference of negligence, in order for the defendant to escape liability, the defendant must show that there was another probable cause of the accident which does not connote negligence and that the explanation for the accident was consistent only with an absence of negligence on the part of the defendant.
Special Damages — Proof Requirements
Special damages must be pleaded and strictly proved, although they need not be supported by documentary evidence in all cases, as cogent verbal evidence can also suffice. A court is entitled to award a lesser figure than what was pleaded if it is satisfied that the lesser amount was proved.
General Damages — Assessment Principles
General damages are compensatory in nature and are intended to make good to the aggrieved party, as far as money can do, for the losses suffered as the natural result of the wrong done. The measure of general damages is that sum which will put the party who has been injured in the same position as he would have been if he had not sustained the wrong for which he is now getting compensation.
Interest — Basis and Rates
The basis of an award of interest is that the defendant has kept the plaintiff out of the use of his money and the defendant has had the use of it himself, so he ought to compensate the plaintiff accordingly. The award of interest is discretionary under section 26(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, and a higher rate of interest is usually charged where someone holds another person's money to that person's detriment.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (32)

  • Victoria Tea Estates v John Bemba and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 49 of 1996)
  • Odd Jobs v Mubia [1970] EA 476
  • Bashir Ahamed Arain v Uganda Kwegata Construction Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 692 of 1999)
  • Blyth Vs. Birmingham Water Works Co. (1856) 11 Ex. 781
  • Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562
  • Paulo Kato v Uganda Transport Corporation [1975] HCB 119
  • Sekitoleko Joram v Kato Edward and Another (Civil Suit No. 97 of 2017)
  • Manson (Uganda) Ltd v Century Bottling Co Ltd and 2 Others (Civil Suit No. 597 of 2001)
  • Alfred Tajar v Uganda (East African Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 167 of 1969)
  • Paul Byekwaso v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2002)
  • Bagenda Dyabe Tommy v Pioneer Easy Bus Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 36 of 2016)
  • Embu Public Road Services Ltd v Riimi [1968] EA 22
  • Kyambadde v Mpigi District Administration [1983] HCB 44
  • Kampala City Council v Nakaye [1972] EA 446
  • Gapco (U) Ltd v AS Transporters Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2007)
  • Uganda Telecom Ltd v Tanzanite Corporation [2005] 2 EA 331
  • John Eletu v Uganda Airlines Corporation [1984] HCB 44
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Deo Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
  • Robert Coussens v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1999)
  • VR Chande v East African Railways Corporation [1964] EA 78
  • Bank of Uganda v FW Masaba and Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1998)
  • Kibimba Rice Co Ltd v Umar Salim (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1988)
  • Crown Beverages Ltd v Sendu Edward (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2005)
  • Livingstone Vs. Ronoyard's Coal Co. (1880) 5. App. Cas 259
  • Akware Caroline Osilo v Gaga Enterprises Ltd (Civil Suit No. 271 of 2011)
  • Ayebale Mark Bosco v Muttico Technical Services Ltd and Another (Civil Suit No. 55 of 2017)
  • Kinyera George Candano v The Management Committee of Laroo Building Primary School (High Court Civil Suit No. 99 of 2013)
  • Sietco v Noble Builders (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 31 of 1995)
  • Harbutts' Plasticine Ltd Vs. Wayne Tank & Pump Co. Ltd (1970) 1 QB 447
  • Masembe v Sugar Corporation and Another [2002] 2 EA 434
  • Devram Nanji Dattani Vs. Haridas Kalidas Dawda, 16, EACA 35
  • Donald Campbell v Pollak [1927] AC 732

Cases citing this judgment (3)

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.

Atto v Waibi and Another (Civil Suit No. 26 of 2013) [2023] UGHCCD 114 (28 April 2023)
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.