Wakilii

Emma (suing through Aulo Emma mother and next friend ) v Doctors Hospital Sseguku Limited ) (Civil Appeal 4 of 2022)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 273 · 2023 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from decision of Uganda Medical and Dental Practitioners' Council dismissing complaint of medical negligence
Decision
Appeal dismissed; decision of Medical and Dental Practitioners' Council upholding no finding of negligence affirmed

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 that the Uganda Medical and Dental Practitioners' Council properly evaluated the evidence and correctly applied the standard of care expected of medical professionals. The respondent's medical personnel did not deviate from accepted medical practice in managing the neonate's extravasation injury. The removal of the cannula, pain control, local measures to reduce swelling, and timely referral for specialist treatment were all expected medical interventions. An error of clinical judgment that a doctor acting with ordinary care might have made does not amount to negligence. Appeal dismissed.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; decision of Medical and Dental Practitioners' Council upholding no finding of negligence affirmed

Facts

On 3 March 2018, the 2nd appellant gave birth to the 1st appellant by Caesarean section at the respondent hospital. The newborn suffered respiratory distress and was placed in NICU on antibiotics with intravenous dextrose administered via cannula inserted in the arm. The baby developed an extravasation injury when the dextrose solution leaked outside the vein. The respondent's medical personnel removed the cannula, provided pain control, applied cold/warm compress, elevated the affected arm, and referred the baby to CORSU for fasciotomies and skin grafting. The Uganda Medical and Dental Practitioners' Council found no professional negligence. The appellants appealed, alleging delay in management and breach of duty of care.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondent's medical personnel owed the appellants a duty of care to properly administer IV dextrose and to attend or refer any complications for further attention in a timely manner.
  2. Whether the respondent's medical personnel were negligent in failing to properly administer IV dextrose and to attend to or refer any complications for further attention in a timely manner.
  3. Whether the Uganda Medical and Dental Practitioners' Council properly evaluated the evidence in concluding that the respondent's medical personnel were not professionally negligent.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Decision of the Uganda Medical and Dental Practitioners' Council dated 22nd October 2021 upheld.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Medical Negligence — Standard of Care — Ordinary Skill of Competent Professional
The test for professional negligence is whether the doctor exercised the ordinary skill of an ordinary competent person professing to have that special skill. A doctor is not negligent if he exercises the ordinary skill of an ordinary competent man professing to have that specialty skill.
Medical Negligence — Burden of Proof — Plaintiff Must Establish Negligence
In a medical negligence claim, the onus is on the plaintiff to establish the negligence. Claims founded on medical negligence are difficult to establish and expensive, as the evidence required is usually in the domain of the hospital and doctors. The injured party inevitably relies on expert testimony to establish whether a reasonable person in the position of the doctor would have made the same diagnosis, treatment, or procedure.
Medical Negligence — Error of Judgment — Not Negligence Per Se
A doctor cannot be held negligent merely because in a matter of opinion he made an error of judgment. Where there are genuinely two responsible schools of thought about management of a clinical situation, the court should not place the hallmark of legality upon one form of treatment. An error that a medical professional acting with ordinary care might have made does not impute negligence.
Medical Negligence — Breach of Duty — Elements to Establish Deviation from Standard
To establish breach of duty in medical negligence, the plaintiff must prove: (1) that there was a usual and normal practice; (2) that the health worker has not adopted that practice; and (3) that the health worker instead adopted a practice that no professional or ordinary skilled person would have taken. The breach of duty must be the direct or proximate cause of the injury.
Professional Disciplinary Bodies — Deference to Expert Evaluation
When determining matters concerning the conduct of a member of a profession, it is the professional's own colleagues of good repute and competency who are in the reasonable position to determine the matter. Courts are deficient of the required knowledge or competency to find a medical person negligent except in extreme cases of obvious and glaring acts of negligence.
Expert Evidence — Weight of Opinion Based on Incomplete Information
Where an expert's opinion is based on hearsay information from a complainant without review of the patient's file to ascertain what procedures were performed and the timelines for the same, such opinion carries less weight than opinions based on concrete facts from the medical records.
Appeals — First Appellate Court — Duty to Re-evaluate Evidence
The first appellate court has a duty to review the evidence and reconsider the materials before the lower tribunal. The appellate court must make up its own mind, not disregarding the judgment appealed from but carefully weighing and considering it.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (6)

  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Maynard v West Midlands regional Health Authority [1984] 1 WLR 634
  • Yeo Peng Hock Henry v Pai Lily [2001] 3 SLR(R) 555
  • Abi v CBN (2012) 3 NWLR p.1
  • Sarah Watsemwa Goseltine and Another v The Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 675 of 2006)
  • Dr Sandys Arthur v Ghana Medical & Dental Council [2012] 52 GMJ 109

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Emma (suing through Aulo Emma mother and next friend ) v Doctors Hospital Sseguku Limited ) (Civil Appeal 4 of 2022) [2023] UGHCCD 273 (22 September 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.