Wakilii

Kiyega & Another v Nazir (CIVIL SUIT NO. 361 OF 2014)

High Court · [2020] UGHCCD 16 · 2020 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 building collapse
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiffs with general damages awarded but special damages dismissed

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

Held that the defendant's building collapse caused damage to the plaintiffs' property including a house and vehicle. The defendant owed a duty of care to neighbouring property owners which was breached when construction continued despite a KCCA stop order. The defendant was found liable. However, special damages were not proved as the plaintiffs failed to adduce receipts for actual expenditure. General damages of UGX 9,000,000 were awarded after considering that the plaintiffs failed to mitigate their loss by rejecting the defendant's offer to repair the damaged property. Costs awarded at 60%.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiffs with general damages awarded but special damages dismissed

Facts

The 1st plaintiff owned and occupied a two-storey building at Plot 939 Block 254 Kansanga, Makindye Division, which housed her residential premises and office space rented by the 2nd plaintiff. On 11 August 2014, a five-storey building owned by the defendant and under construction on the neighbouring plot collapsed. Rubble and debris from the collapsing building fell onto the plaintiffs' property causing damage to the house, a Mercedes Benz vehicle registration UCQ 857, and office equipment. The defendant admitted some damage occurred but disputed the extent, stating only minor damage was caused to window glass and the vehicle. The defendant offered to repair the damage but the plaintiffs refused and engaged professional valuers to assess the loss. The plaintiffs claimed special damages of UGX 114,825,765 plus general damages.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiffs' properties were damaged as a result of the collapsing of the defendant's building.
  2. Whether the defendant is liable for the damages/loss claimed by the plaintiffs.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Issue 1 resolved in the affirmative — plaintiffs' properties were damaged as a result of the defendant's building collapse.
  • Defendant found liable for damage to the plaintiffs' property.
  • Claim for special damages dismissed for failure of strict proof.
  • General damages of UGX 9,000,000 awarded to the plaintiffs.
  • Plaintiffs awarded 60% of the costs of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Tort Law — Negligence — Duty of Care — Neighbouring Property Owners — Construction Activities
A property owner conducting construction work owes a duty of care to neighbouring property owners and is liable for damage caused when the construction work causes injury to neighbouring property, particularly where construction continued despite a regulatory stop order.
Damages & Quantum — Special Damages — Proof Requirements — Receipts and Documentation
Special damages must not only be specifically pleaded but must also be strictly proved with receipts or other evidence of actual expenditure. Mere estimation of damage and loss by professional valuers without proof of actual expenditure is insufficient to establish special damages.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Mitigation of Loss — Refusal of Reasonable Offers
A plaintiff has a duty to mitigate loss. Where a defendant offers to repair damaged property and the plaintiff unreasonably refuses that offer, opting instead to claim monetary damages, the court may reduce the award of general damages on the ground that the plaintiff failed to mitigate the loss.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Jurisdiction — Cases That Should Have Been Filed in Lower Courts
Where a suit is filed in the High Court but the nature and quantum of the claim indicate it should have been filed in a Magistrates' Court, the court may limit the plaintiff's costs award even where judgment is entered in the plaintiff's favour.

Cases cited (6)

  • Oketha Dafala Valente v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 0069 of 2004)
  • Benedicto Musisi v Attorney General (HCCS No. 622 of 1989)
  • Rosemary Nalwadda v Uganda Aids Commission (HCCS No. 67 of 2011)
  • Borham-Carter v. Hyde Park Hotel [1948] 64 TLR
  • Dr Denis Lwamafa v Attorney General (HCCS No. 79 of 1983)
  • Ouma vs Nairobi City Council [1976] KLR 298

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kiyega & Another v Nazir (CIVIL SUIT NO. 361 OF 2014) [2020] UGHCCD 16 (13 March 2020)
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.