Wakilii

Dr. Julius Wambette and Another v Impressa Inc. Fortunato Federici (Civil Suit 27 of 1997)

High Court · [1997] UGHC 27 · 1997 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of special and general damages arising from negligent operation of a motor vehicle. Defendant admitted liability after initial denial; suit proceeded to assessment of damages only.
Decision
The plaintiffs were awarded general damages of UGX 25,000,000 and special damages of UGX 598,000, both with interest, plus costs. The defendant's admission of liability led to judgment under Order 11 Rule 6 CPR, with the suit proceeding only to assessment of damages.

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: Where a nine-year-old child is rendered permanently deaf and dumb (70% permanent disability assessed) following a motor vehicle accident for which the defendant admits liability, an award of UGX 25,000,000 in general damages for pain, suffering, and loss of amenities is appropriate. Special damages of UGX 598,000 are awarded as proved by receipts and evidence. Medical reports compiled after filing suit but reflecting the plaintiff's post-treatment condition may be admitted where they depict a true state of facts, notwithstanding Order 7 Rule 18 CPR.

Outcome

The plaintiffs were awarded general damages of UGX 25,000,000 and special damages of UGX 598,000, both with interest, plus costs. The defendant's admission of liability led to judgment under Order 11 Rule 6 CPR, with the suit proceeding only to assessment of damages.

Facts

On 15 October 1995, the second plaintiff, a child, was knocked down along Cathedral Avenue, Mbale Municipality, by motor vehicle registration number KAD 248 belonging to the defendant and driven by the defendant's employee Ali Camusi. The accident caused a compound fracture of the left femur, closed head injury leading to aphasia, shock, and pain. The second plaintiff was unconscious for three days and, following treatment, was rendered permanently deaf and dumb. The first plaintiff, the father of the second plaintiff, incurred medical, transport, and other expenses in treating her. The defendant initially denied liability but later, through new counsel, admitted liability. The case proceeded solely to assessment of damages. Medical evidence showed the second plaintiff's permanent disability was assessed at 70%, and she would likely be dependent for life and unable to learn skills for sustenance.

Issues

  1. What is the quantum of general damages the second plaintiff is entitled to for pain, suffering, and loss of amenities resulting from permanent disability (rendered deaf and dumb) caused by a motor vehicle accident?
  2. What special damages have been strictly proved by the plaintiffs?
  3. What is the evidentiary value and admissibility of medical reports compiled after the filing of the suit but reflecting the plaintiff's condition after completion of treatment?

Orders

  • Judgment entered against the defendant under Order 11 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  • The second plaintiff is awarded UGX 25,000,000 in general damages for pain, suffering, and loss of amenities with interest at court rate from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • The defendant shall pay UGX 598,000 as special damages to the plaintiffs with interest at bank rate from the date of filing the suit until payment in full.
  • The defendant shall pay the taxed costs of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Admissibility of Medical Reports — Documents Not Annexed to Plaint — Post-Filing Evidence
Medical reports compiled after the filing of a suit but before trial, reflecting the plaintiff's condition after completion of treatment, may be admitted in evidence if the court is satisfied they depict a true state of facts, notwithstanding Order 7 Rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Rules which requires documents to be annexed to or listed in the plaint. The rule is intended to prevent parties from manufacturing evidence, but does not bar admission of genuine documents created after filing where they accurately reflect the plaintiff's post-treatment condition and complications that could not have been known at the time of filing.
Expert Evidence — Binding Nature of Counsel's Admissions of Fact
Where an advocate makes an admission of fact or of evidence in the course of proceedings, such admission is binding on the client. It is only when an advocate makes an admission of law which proves to be incorrect that the client is not bound. An admission by defence counsel of the admissibility and contents of a medical report is an admission of fact and binds the defendant.
Expert Evidence — Admissibility Without Oral Testimony — Waiver by Admission of Liability
Where a defendant admits liability in a personal injury suit, thereby admitting the plaintiff's pleadings including the injuries sustained, and the case proceeds only to assessment of damages, the defendant cannot thereafter object that a medical report incorporated into evidence should be disregarded solely because the authoring doctor did not give oral testimony. The admission of liability operates as a waiver of the general rule that expert witnesses should testify orally before their reports are admitted.
General Damages — Assessment of Permanent Disability — Loss of Multiple Faculties in a Child
In assessing general damages for personal injury, the court must determine the nature and extent of the injuries and use its discretion to decide what sum in monetary terms would place the plaintiff in as good a position as she would have been had the injury not occurred. Where a nine-year-old child sustains permanent loss of the faculties of speech and hearing (assessed at 70% permanent disability) and is rendered dependent for life and unable to learn skills for sustenance, an award of UGX 25,000,000 is appropriate, taking into account the plaintiff's youth and the extended period over which she will bear the loss of amenities.
Comparative Awards — Use of Recent Precedents
In assessing and awarding damages, previous similar cases serve as a guide to the court, but such cases should be recent to be useful. Cases decided in the distant past may not provide reliable guidance due to economic changes and the effect of inflation.
Special Damages — Strict Proof — Methods of Proof
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. The best method of proof for recorded transactions is by producing receipts. However, special damages may also be proved by means other than receipts or documentary evidence in the case of transactions not ordinarily recorded, by vividly describing the claim, the transaction involved, or the article in respect of which the claim is made.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (19)

  • Col Ndahendekire v Transocean (1975) HCB 302
  • Veneensio Kyolibera v West Mengo District Administration (1971) 1 HCB 273
  • Eastern Province Bus Company v G.W. Bibi (1971) 1 ULR 87
  • Barnabas Ntimba v Uganda Electricity Board (Court of Appeal, Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 16 of 1992)
  • Austin Mperabusa v Paul Etot (High Court Civil Suit No. 52 of 1995)
  • Phillips v Ward (1956) 1 All ER 874
  • Eriab Lukyamusi v House & Tenant Agencies Ltd (1983) HCB 74
  • Pushpa v Fleet Transport Company (1960) EA 1025
  • Talituuka v Nakendo (1979) HCB 275
  • Kahwa and Another v Uganda Transport Company (1978) HCB 520
  • Apdum Lumodoi-Omodoi v Attorney General and Another (High Court Civil Suit No. 776 of 1990)
  • Michael Muledu (suing through next friend) v Attorney General (1979) HCB 150
  • Mutyaba Leonard Sembatya v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 21 of 1994)
  • Kibimba Rice Company (High Court Civil Suit No. 7 of 1988)
  • Uganda v Isumarisi Okello (1994) HCB 85
  • Lord Arbinger v Ashton (1875) L.R. Equity 358
  • Christopher Kiggundu and Daniel Ssentongo v Ugandan Transport Company 1975 Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1995)
  • Consultancy Gas Engineering Co. Ltd v Bitature and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1994)
  • Attorney General v Baranga and Another (1976) HCB

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Dr. Julius Wambette and Another v Impressa Inc. Fortunato Federici (Civil Suit 27 of 1997) [1997] UGHC 27 (18 December 1997)
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.