Gaso Transport Services Limited v Kikambi (Civil Appeal 41 of 2002)

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 Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against a High Court finding of vicarious negligence arising from a bus accident. The Court held that medical reports admitted by consent need not have their authors called, as technical rules of evidence may be waived by consent and medical evidence is merely corroborative. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur need not be pleaded and properly shifted the burden to the defendant, who offered no convincing explanation. The defence of inevitable accident failed on the contradictory evidence of the defence witness. On special damages, the Court accepted that realistic, credible evidence suffices where receipts cannot reasonably be retained over an extended period.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment in negligence affirmed

Facts

The appellant, Gaso Transport Services Ltd, carried on passenger transportation and owned an Isuzu passenger bus. On 10 October 1989, while the bus was proceeding to Masaka driven by the appellant's authorised driver, it was involved in an accident. The respondent, Baker Kikambi, who was employed as an inspector and travelling in the bus, sustained serious injuries including the loss of his left leg through an above-knee amputation, with permanent disability assessed at 65%. The bus, blinded by lights of an oncoming vehicle, swerved, knocked into a stationary vehicle, hit an electric pole and overturned into a swamp. Medical reports from Dr Mary Lynch and Professor Sekabunga were admitted by consent; both authors were unavailable, one having died and the other having returned to Ireland. The High Court found the appellant vicariously liable in negligence and awarded general and special damages. The appellant appealed.

Issues

1. Whether the trial Judge erred in relying on medical reports whose authors were not called to testify.
2. Whether the trial Judge erred in relying on a police abstract report not formally tendered as an exhibit.
3. Whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was properly invoked.
4. Whether the defence of inevitable accident was established.
5. Whether the special damages awarded were strictly proved.
6. Whether the trial Judge properly evaluated the evidence on record.

Orders

• Appeal dismissed with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (2)

• Evidence Act s.65
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 7 rules 18 and 19

Cases cited (8)

• Attornev General vs Baranga (1976) HCB 45
• Musisi Dirisa and 3 Others v Sietico (U) Limited (Civil Appeal No. 24 of 1993)
• Scott vs London and St. Katherine Docks Co. (1865) H.C.596, 13 LT 148
• Cole vs De Trafford (No.2) (1918) 2 KB 523
• Bennett vs Chemical Construction (G.B) Ltd (1971) 3 AER 822; (1971) 1 WLR 1571
• Mulutsu vs Akamba (U) Ltd. HCCS No.197/90 (Ngonda-Ntende J.)
• Martive Odalia Obong vs Gaso Transport Services Ltd. HCCS No.7-10 B of 1991 (Kireju J.)
• Ratcliffe vs Evans (1892) 2 QB 524, 528-533 (C.A)

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.

• Noble Builders (U) Limited and Anor v Jabal Singh Sandhu (Civil Application 15 of 2002)

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