Wakilii

Ayebale v Muttico Technical Services Limited and Another (Civil Suit No. 55 of 2017)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 24 · 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 road traffic accident caused by negligence
Decision
Defendants held jointly and severally liable; plaintiff awarded special and general damages totalling UGX 99,790,000 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

The court held that the second defendant driver breached his duty of care by swerving into oncoming traffic and colliding with the plaintiff motorcyclist, and the first defendant employer is vicariously liable. The defence of contributory negligence failed for want of proper pleading and proof. The court awarded special damages for lost earnings and medical expenses, and general damages for permanent physical incapacitation of both lower limbs, together with interest and costs.

Outcome

Defendants held jointly and severally liable; plaintiff awarded special and general damages totalling UGX 99,790,000 plus interest and costs

Facts

On 21 September 2016, the plaintiff was riding a motorcycle along the Kampala-Jinja Highway at Bweyogerere when the second defendant, driving a motor vehicle owned by the first defendant and acting in the course of employment, veered and swerved off his lane into oncoming traffic and collided with the plaintiff. The plaintiff sustained fractures of the femur and tibia of the right lower limb and left knee, was hospitalized for approximately one year, and suffered permanent disability of both lower limbs. The plaintiff was a commercial motorcycle rider earning approximately UGX 50,000 per day. He incurred medical expenses and lost income during his hospitalization and was left unable to continue his occupation. The defendants filed a defence alleging the plaintiff was negligent but failed to appear at trial despite sufficient notice.

Issues

  1. Whether the Defendants are liable in negligence?
  2. Whether the Plaintiff was negligent?
  3. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the Plaintiff against the Defendants jointly and severally.
  • UGX 18,250,000 awarded as special damages for loss of earnings.
  • UGX 1,540,000 awarded as special damages for medical expenses.
  • UGX 80,000,000 awarded as general damages.
  • Interest on special damages at 10% per annum from date of filing suit until payment in full.
  • Interest on general damages at 8% per annum from date of judgment until full payment.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Negligence — Elements — Duty of Care — Breach — Damage
To establish the tort of negligence, the plaintiff must prove that there was a legal duty of care owed to him, that the duty of care was breached by the defendant, and that damage or injury was suffered by the plaintiff.
Motor Vehicle Accidents — Driver's Duty — Duty to Other Road Users
A driver of a motor vehicle is under a duty to take reasonable care for the safety of other traffic on the road to avoid a collision, which duty involves taking all measures to avoid collision. Once a possibility of danger emerging is reasonably apparent and no precautions are taken by the driver, such driver is negligent, notwithstanding that the other driver or road user is in breach of some traffic regulations or even negligent.
Vicarious Liability — Employer Liability for Employee's Tortious Acts
An employer is vicariously liable for the tortious acts committed by an employee in the course of employment.
Pleadings — Contributory Negligence — Requirement of Express Plea
A defendant who seeks to raise contributory negligence must expressly plead it in the written statement of defence and must set out particulars of negligence. A bare claim of negligence cannot be set up as a defence to a suit founded on negligence without a proper plea of contributory negligence supported by evidence.
Special Damages — Proof — Lost Income — Informal Sector Earnings
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved, but proof does not always require documentary evidence; cogent oral evidence may suffice. Where a plaintiff operated in the informal sector such as the boda boda industry and there is no evidence to controvert the plaintiff's assertion of daily earnings, the court may accept unchallenged oral evidence as reasonable proof of lost income.
General Damages — Assessment — Personal Injury — Permanent Disability
General damages are awarded at the discretion of the court to restore the aggrieved person to the position they would have been in had the wrong not occurred. In assessing general damages for personal injury, the court considers the value of the subject matter, the economic inconvenience suffered, and the nature and extent of the injury, including permanent physical incapacitation and loss of earning capacity.
Interest on Damages — Rate — Rationale
The basis of an award of interest is that the defendant has kept the plaintiff out of his money and ought to compensate the plaintiff accordingly. In determining a just and reasonable rate of interest, the court takes into account inflation and depreciation of currency, awarding a rate that insulates the plaintiff against economic vagaries while reflecting the prevailing economic value of money.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (18)

  • Ssekitoleko Joram v Kato Edward and Another (Civil Suit No. 97 of 2017)
  • Kato Paul v Uganda Transport Corporation [1975] HCB 119
  • Marsh East Africa Limited v Road Tainers (Mombasa) Limited (Civil Suit No. 20 of 2016)
  • Blyth v Birmingham Water Works (1856) II EX 78
  • Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) UKHL 100
  • Paul Byekwaso v Attorney General (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2002)
  • Bagenda Dyabe Tommy v Pioneer Easy Bus Limited (Civil Suit No. 36 of 2016)
  • Embu Public Road Services Ltd v Riimi [1968] EA 22
  • Uganda Telecom Ltd v Tanzanite Corporation [2005] 2 EA 331
  • Gapco (U) Ltd v A.S Transporters Ltd [2009] 1 HCB 6
  • John Eletu v Uganda Air Lines Corporation [1984] HCB 44
  • Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341
  • Charles Acire v M. Engola (Civil Suit No. 143 of 1993)
  • Kibimba Rice Ltd v Umar Salim (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1992)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
  • Premchandra Shenoi and Another v Maximov Oleg Petrovich (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2003)
  • Harbutt's Plasticine Ltd v Wayne Tank & Pump Co. Ltd [1970] QB 447
  • Kinyera v Management Committee of Laroo Building Primary School (Civil Suit No. 099 of 2013)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ayebale v Muttico Technical Services Limited and Another (Civil Suit No. 55 of 2017) [2023] UGHCCD 24 (22 February 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.