Wakilii

Katende v Attorney General (Civil Suit 738 of 1989)

High Court · [1992] UGHC 77 · 1992 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for damages for medical negligence
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff with damages and costs awarded

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 defendant's doctors negligent for damaging the plaintiff's radial nerve during surgery to remove a metal plate, causing loss of function in his right arm and hand. The court held that surgeons are expected to identify and avoid injuring the radial nerve in ordinary surgical work. In the absence of any explanation from the defendant, who failed to appear at trial, the plaintiff established negligence on a balance of probabilities. General damages of UGX 1,750,000 and special damages of UGX 20,000 were awarded.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff with damages and costs awarded

Facts

The plaintiff, a soldier in the National Resistance Army, sustained gunshot wounds and a fractured right humerus in 1985 during the war. He was treated in Uganda and then in East Germany where a metal plate was inserted. After one and a half years, he regained normal use of his arm and hand. He was advised to have the plate removed and was admitted to Mulago Hospital on 23 November 1988. During the operation on 21 December 1988 to remove the metal plate, performed by Doctors Pedroro, Robert, and Kobusingye, the plaintiff's radial nerve was damaged. Following the operation, he lost all strength and function in his right arm and hand. The discharge form confirmed the radial nerve was injured during the operation. Professor Ssekabunga examined the plaintiff in November 1989 and assessed his permanent disability at 50%, attributing the loss of strength to the radial nerve injury.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant's servants exercised reasonable skill and care during the surgical operation on the plaintiff.
  2. Whether the plaintiff proved negligence causing injury to his radial nerve during the operation.
  3. What quantum of damages is appropriate for loss of use of the right arm and hand.

Orders

  • Judgment for the plaintiff.
  • Special damages awarded in the sum of UGX 20,000.
  • General damages awarded in the sum of UGX 1,750,000.
  • Interest on decretal amount at 20% per annum from the date of judgment until realisation in full.
  • Defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the action.

Rules and key headnotes

Medical Negligence — Standard of Care — Duty to Exercise Reasonable Skill
In ordinary surgical work, surgeons are expected to identify the radial nerve and avoid inflicting damage to it. Failure to do so, resulting in injury to the nerve, constitutes a breach of the duty to exercise reasonable skill and care.
Medical Negligence — Burden of Proof — Res Ipsa Loquitur
Where a patient enters hospital with a functioning limb and emerges from surgery with permanent loss of function due to nerve damage, and the defendant offers no explanation, the plaintiff may establish negligence on a balance of probabilities in the absence of rebuttal evidence.
Special Damages — Proof — Medical Reports
Documentary proof of special damages is not always necessary in all cases. Where a plaintiff testifies to payment for a medical report and the evidence is uncontroverted, the court may award special damages even without a receipt.
Assessment of Damages — Failure to Mitigate — Effect on Quantum
Where a plaintiff fails to follow medical advice for a second operation that may have remedied part of the disability, this is a factor to be taken into account in assessing general damages, reducing the award that would otherwise be made for total permanent loss.

Cases cited (3)

  • Eyambulu v Mpigi District Administration [1983] H.C.B. 44
  • Walugembe v Attorney General [1985] H.C.B. 122
  • Damba v Uganda Railways Corporation [1985] H.C.B. 125

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Katende v Attorney General (Civil Suit 738 of 1989) [1992] UGHC 77 (12 June 1992)
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.