Wakilii

Kabiito V Attorney General & 2 Others (CIVIL SUIT NO. 26 OF 2012)

High Court · [2019] UGHCCD 197 · 2019 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for damages arising from medical negligence causing death
Decision
Plaintiff awarded special and general damages totalling UGX 1,516,300,000 with costs

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 High Court held that a hospital and medical practitioners owed a duty of care to a patient who died from post-partum haemorrhage. The defendants were negligent in failing to transfuse blood as advised, failing to provide adequate post-operative care, and failing to follow up on the patient's condition. The defence of contributory negligence failed because it was not pleaded. The court awarded UGX 1.5 billion in general damages for negligence causing death, plus UGX 16.3 million in special damages for funeral and medical expenses. Vicarious liability attached to the Attorney General for the negligence of hospital staff.

Outcome

Plaintiff awarded special and general damages totalling UGX 1,516,300,000 with costs

Facts

On 23 March 2011, Katusabe Elizabeth, aged 35 and employed as a nursing assistant at Fort Portal Referral Hospital, was admitted in labour at 3:00pm. She was operated on by Dr. Kwikiriza Nicholas (DW2) at 5:00pm. The operation successfully removed the baby and the deceased left the operating theatre alive. DW2 advised that she be transfused with blood. However, no blood transfusion was administered. The deceased died from haemorrhagic shock due to post-partum haemorrhage following uterine atony. The medical certificate of cause of death confirmed that the cause was bleeding after delivery because the uterus did not contract. The plaintiff, her husband, brought this suit on his own behalf and on behalf of the family under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, claiming damages for negligence causing death.

Issues

  1. Whether the Defendants were liable in negligence?
  2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the remedies sought?

Orders

  • Judgment entered in favour of the Plaintiff.
  • The 1st Defendant to pay special damages of UGX 16,300,000.
  • The 1st Defendant to pay general damages of UGX 1.5 billion for the negligence of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Medical Negligence — Duty of Care — Doctor-Patient Relationship
A doctor who is consulted by a patient owes that patient a fourfold duty: a duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case, a duty of care in deciding what treatment to give, a duty of care in the administration of that treatment, and a duty to follow up to ensure proper post-operative care is administered.
Medical Negligence — Standard of Care — Test for Breach
The test for establishing medical negligence is whether the doctor has been proved guilty of such failure as no doctor of ordinary skill would be guilty of if acting with ordinary care. The standard is that of the ordinary skilled doctor exercising and professing to have that special skill, not the standard of the man on the Clapham omnibus.
Medical Negligence — Breach of Duty — Failure to Follow Medical Advice
Where a doctor advises that a patient be transfused with blood after surgery and this advice is not followed, resulting in the patient's death from haemorrhagic shock, the doctor and hospital are liable in negligence for failure to provide life-saving treatment and for failure to follow up to ensure the treatment was administered.
Pleadings — Contributory Negligence — Requirement to Plead
Contributory negligence must be pleaded in the written statement of defence with particulars given. A defendant cannot rely on contributory negligence at trial if it was not pleaded, as this amounts to a departure from pleadings contrary to Order 6 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules and is prejudicial to the plaintiff who had no fair notice of the case to meet.
Vicarious Liability — Medical Negligence — Liability of Government
The Attorney General is vicariously liable for the negligence of medical practitioners and other staff employed at government hospitals where those employees breach the duty of care owed to patients in the course of their employment.
Special Damages — Funeral Expenses — Proof
Although special damages must be strictly proved, failure to attach receipts for funeral expenses is excusable because at the time of bereavement it may not be possible to attend to details such as asking for receipts. Funeral expenses as pleaded will be awarded where the claim is supported by witness testimony even if documentary proof was lost.
General Damages — Death from Negligence — Assessment
In assessing general damages for death caused by medical negligence, the court considers the unlawful death, loss of life, pain and suffering, mental and psychological torture, anguish, dependants being left motherless, the deceased's age, occupation, and the deplorable manner in which medical staff failed to save the life of a colleague. Where the right to life is lost permanently and cannot be compensated by any amount of money, substantial damages are warranted.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (8)

  • Bat U 1984 Ltd v Selestino Mushongore (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 26 of 1994)
  • Uganda Breweries Ltd v Uganda Railways Corporation (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2001)
  • Stanley Kamihanda v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 1201 of 1998)
  • Kimmy Paul Semenye versus Aga Khan Hospital and 2 Others [2006] KLR
  • Blyth versus Birmingham Co. [1856] 11 Exch. 781-784
  • Kyambadde versus Mpigi District Administration [1983] HCB 44
  • JNB (Deceased) versus The Archdiocese of Nairobi Kenya Registered Trustees & 2 others, High Court of Kenya Civil Case No. 30 of 2010
  • Moses Ssali v Attorney General & Another (High Court Civil Suit No. 86 of 2010)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kabiito V Attorney General & 2 Others (CIVIL SUIT NO. 26 OF 2012) [2019] UGHCCD 197 (3 October 2019)
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.