Helen Opio v Impresterling Imprest Limited (Civil Suit 380 of 1995)
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
The court held the defendant vicariously liable for injuries caused by its driver's negligence when the driver emerged from the defendant's quarry without stopping for main road traffic and collided with the plaintiff's minibus. Applying the principle that ownership of a vehicle is prima facie evidence that it was driven by the owner or agent, the court found the driver acted within the scope of employment despite using the wrong method. The plaintiff was awarded UGX 6 million in general damages for injuries, UGX 3 million for loss of business, UGX 860,000 in special damages for lost property, plus costs and interest.
Outcome
Plaintiff awarded damages totalling UGX 9,860,000 plus interest and costs for injuries and losses sustained in motor vehicle accident caused by defendant's driver
Facts
On 22 June 1994, the plaintiff, a nursing officer travelling from Tororo to Kampala on official duty, was a passenger in minibus UPO 167. At Mbalala Trading Centre near the defendant's quarry on the Jinja-Kampala highway, the defendant's pickup truck UPW 123 emerged from the quarry gate without stopping for main road traffic and collided with the minibus, forcing it into a ditch. The plaintiff sustained a fractured right humerus, multiple abrasions, and subsequently developed pneumonia. She was hospitalised at Mulago, Tororo, and Mbale hospitals and was off work for four months. The fracture healed but left her arm shortened by 1.5 to 2 inches with 10% permanent functional incapacity. The defendant's driver fled the scene immediately after the accident. The plaintiff lost personal property valued at UGX 860,000 and claimed loss of income from her drug shop during her recovery period.
Issues
- Whether the accident was due to the driver's negligence.
- Whether the defendant can be held vicariously liable for the driver's acts.
- What injuries and losses were suffered by the plaintiff.
- What quantum of damages should be awarded to the plaintiff.
Orders
- Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff.
- General damages of UGX 6,000,000 awarded for injuries sustained.
- General damages of UGX 3,000,000 awarded for loss of business.
- Special damages of UGX 860,000 awarded for lost property.
- Interest at court rates from date of judgment until payment in full.
- Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.
Rules and key headnotes
Cases cited (9)
- Muwonge v Attorney General [1967] EA 17
- Namwandu v Attorney General [1972] EA 108
- J. F. Ijala vs. corporation Enerqo project 1988-1990 HCB page 122
- Mohammadali Mitha and anor vs. Santa Singh Jandu, MB 31/63 HCCS No. 600/62
- KM Vaghela vs. Attorney General MB 82/63
- Ezera Kato vs. Yaaha Mr. Kiggundu MB 141/71, HCCS No. 147/70
- Humb Hussein v Hunt [1964] EA 201
- Kampala City Council vs. Nakaye 197^ EA page 446
- Kibimba Rice Company Co. Ltd vs. Lumar Salim civil appeal No. 7 of 1988 Supreme Court Reported 1992 V KALR page 17
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.