Barnabas Ntimba v Uganda Electricity Board [1993] UGSC 5

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The Supreme Court held that the trial judge's award of shs 9,000,000 as general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenities was inordinately low given the catastrophic and permanent nature of the appellant's injuries, which left him 80% disabled, wheelchair-bound and wholly dependent on his wife for the rest of his life. Judging from comparable awards, the court increased the general damages to shs 18,000,000, reasoning that such a sum, if wisely invested, would generate income to meet the appellant's continuing care needs. The unopposed award of shs 11,856,000 for loss of future earnings stood, so judgment was entered for a total of shs 29,856,000.

Outcome

Appeal allowed; general damages increased to shs 18,000,000 and total judgment entered for shs 29,856,000

Facts

The appellant was seriously injured while working for the Uganda Electricity Board, which was found liable in the High Court; that finding of liability was not appealed. The injuries were catastrophic: he lost the sight of his right eye and could see only dimly with the left, his right leg was amputated above the knee, his right hand was weakened so he could not write, and he suffered extensive burns to the scalp and shoulder requiring skin grafts. Two doctors assessed his disability at 80%. Aged 37 and in the prime of life, he was confined to a wheelchair, unable to dress, bathe or use the toilet without help, and wholly dependent on his wife, who did no other work. Medical evidence indicated a poor life expectancy and a need for continuing treatment and care for the rest of his life. The trial judge awarded shs 9,000,000 in general damages and shs 11,856,000 for loss of future earnings.

Issues

1. Whether the trial court's award of shs 9,000,000 as general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenities was inordinately low and ought to be increased.

Orders

• Appeal allowed.
• Judgment of the trial judge varied by awarding the appellant shs 18,000,000 as general damages.
• Judgment entered for shs 29,856,000.
• Costs of the appeal to the appellant.

Rules and key headnotes

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

• Itabai Joseph v Outa Ben and Others (Civil Suit No. 7 of 2024)

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