Crown Beverages Ltd v Sendu Edwards [2006] UGSC 2

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 respondent recovered general damages for negligence after consuming a contaminated Mirinda soft drink bottled by the appellant, the Court of Appeal awarding UGX 15,000,000. On second appeal the Supreme Court restated that an appellate court will not disturb an award of damages unless the lower court applied a wrong principle of law or the sum is so high or so low as to amount to an entirely erroneous estimate of the damages to which the plaintiff is entitled. Finding no expert evidence that the respondent's injury was permanent, the Court held the UGX 15,000,000 award excessive, reduced it to UGX 3,000,000, and awarded the respondent one-third of the costs in all courts. The appeal partially succeeded.

Outcome

Appeal partially allowed; Court of Appeal's general damages award reduced from UGX 15,000,000 to UGX 3,000,000.

Facts

The respondent bought a bottle of Mirinda Fruity soft drink from a retailer, who opened it for him. While drinking, he felt small stones on his tongue and noticed dirt in the bottle; a second bottle of Mirinda Lemon on the shop's rack also contained dirt. He reported the matter to the local LC1 chairman and took the bottles to the Government Chemist, who analysed the contents and found a suspended substance unsafe for human consumption. The respondent later developed nausea, vomiting and diarrhoea and consulted a doctor at Busabala Clinic, but could not complete treatment for lack of funds. He complained of weakness in his genitals and was referred to a neurologist whom he never consulted. He sued the appellant, the bottler, for UGX 30,000,000 in general damages for negligence. The trial court dismissed the suit for failure to prove breach of the duty of care. The Court of Appeal allowed his appeal and awarded UGX 15,000,000 general damages. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court contending the award was excessive.

Issues

1. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in granting damages in respect of a head of damage that had not been claimed.
2. Whether the general damages of UGX 15,000,000 awarded by the Court of Appeal were excessive, such that the Supreme Court should interfere with the award.

Orders

• Appeal partially allowed.
• Judgment and orders of the Court of Appeal set aside and substituted.
• Award of UGX 3,000,000 general damages to the respondent.
• Award of one-third of the costs in the Supreme Court and in the courts below to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Cases cited (9)

• Flint v Lovell [1935] 1 KB 354
• Robert Coussens v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1999)
• Milly Masembe v Sugar Corporation of Uganda and Another (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2000)
• Phillips v London South Western Railway Co (1879) 5 QBD 78
• Owen v Sykes [1936] 1 KB 192
• Muljibhai vs. the ParticularAnor (1944) EACA
• Mitdford Bowker (1947) 14 EACA 20
• Watson v Powles [1968] 1 QB 596
• Obonyo v Municipal Council of Kisumu [1971] EA 91

Cases citing this judgment (8)

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.

• Elsa Bokhre Abraha v Opec Prime Properties (U) Ltd and Another (Civil Suit 106 of 2020)
• Multiple ICD(U) Limited v Jaco Commercial Agencies Limited (Civil Appeal No.125 of 2020)
• National Insurance Corporation Ltd v Lukoooya Sam M (Civil Appeal No. 29 of 2019)
• Hass Petroleum (U) Limited v Kena International Limited and Another (Civil Suit No. 275 of 2021)
• Karegyeja Geoffrey T A Kloaf Bakery v Crane Management Services Ltd and Others (Civil Suit No. 966 of 2020)
• Nakalanzi Rashidah and Others v Finicon Group (U) Limited (Civil Suit No. 79 of 2020)
• Lutaaya and Others v DFCU Bank Uganda Limited and Others (Civil Suit 616 of 2020)
• Aluma & 2 Others v Okuti (Civil Appeal 214 of 2017)

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