Wakilii

Kasoma v Salini Construction & Anor (HCT-00-CC-CS 190 of 2008)

High Court · [2012] UGCOMMC 100 · 2012 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 negligence and breach of duty of care
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff with damages, interest, and costs. The 1st defendant was withdrawn from the suit following a consent settlement.

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 found the 2nd defendant liable for damages to the plaintiff's property caused by blasting activities that damaged structures within 15 meters of the excavation site. Liability was admitted by the 2nd defendant but quantum was disputed. Following a joint valuation by an independent expert agreed by all parties, the court awarded special damages of UGX 40,092,700 for property damage, UGX 1,000,000 for valuation costs, and general damages of UGX 8,018,540 for disturbance and inconvenience. Exemplary damages were refused as no exceptional circumstances were established.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff with damages, interest, and costs. The 1st defendant was withdrawn from the suit following a consent settlement.

Facts

Between April 2005 and June 2006, the 2nd defendant, as subcontractor to the 1st defendant, extracted rock and hardcore stones using explosives in the Nansana area. The plaintiff's house was located within 15 meters of the blasting site. Rocks from the blasts flew onto the plaintiff's property, damaging the iron roof sheets. The blasting activities also caused the main house, servant's house, and latrine to crack, and the underground water tank collapsed. The defendants failed to notify the plaintiff of the blasts or control the flying rubble. The 1st defendant denied involvement, claiming the 2nd defendant was contracted by Sterling Civil Engineering Ltd. Prior to trial, the 1st defendant settled with the plaintiff for UGX 5,000,000 and was withdrawn from the suit. The parties agreed to an independent valuation by Proman Consult Ltd to assess the damage.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaint discloses a reasonable cause of action against the 1st defendant.
  2. Whether the 2nd defendant is liable for the damages caused to the premises.
  3. What is the quantum of compensation payable if any?
  4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the remedies.

Orders

  • The 2nd defendant is liable for damages caused to the plaintiff's premises.
  • Special damages of UGX 40,092,700 awarded to the plaintiff.
  • UGX 1,000,000 awarded for valuation costs.
  • General damages of UGX 8,018,540 awarded for disturbance and inconvenience.
  • Exemplary damages refused.
  • Interest on special damages at 21% per annum from date of filing suit until payment in full.
  • Interest on general damages at 8% per annum from date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Tort Law — Negligence — Duty of Care — Blasting Operations — Liability for Property Damage from Flying Debris
A contractor conducting blasting operations owes a duty of care to neighbouring property owners to notify them of blasting activities, control flying rubble, and prevent damage to their property. Failure to do so constitutes negligence and breach of duty of care.
Civil Procedure — Expert Evidence — Court-Appointed Independent Experts — Effect of Joint Appointment by Parties
Where parties jointly appoint an independent expert to value disputed technical matters and the process is not manifestly flawed, the court will give effect to the expert's report. This promotes reconciliation under Article 126(2)(d) of the Constitution and improves case management efficiency.
Civil Procedure — Admissions in Pleadings — Effect of Admitted Liability
Where a defendant in its written statement of defence admits liability for damage caused but disputes only the quantum of compensation, the court will find the defendant liable based on the pleaded admission.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Assessment for Disturbance and Inconvenience — Percentage of Special Damages
General damages for disturbance and inconvenience may be assessed as a percentage of special damages. An award of 20% of special damages for disturbance and inconvenience caused by property damage is reasonable.
Damages & Quantum — Exemplary Damages — Exceptional Circumstances Required
Exemplary damages are awarded only in exceptional circumstances to punish the defendant and deter repetition of wrongful conduct. They require oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional conduct by the defendant, conduct calculated to make profit exceeding compensation, or express statutory authority. Mere negligence without exceptional circumstances does not warrant exemplary damages.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (2)

  • Okello James v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 574 of 2003)
  • Kasule v Makerere University [1975] HCB 276

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kasoma v Salini Construction & Anor (HCT-00-CC-CS 190 of 2008) [2012] UGCommC 100 (21 August 2012)
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.