Wakilii

Ladha v Durrheimm Brothers (Civil Appeal 14-1934.)

East African Court of Appeal · [1935] EACA 9 · 1935 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second appeal from First Class Subordinate Court decision, first appeal having been dismissed by High Court of Tanganyika
Decision
Judgment varied; damages reduced from Sh. 3,879/50 to Sh. 2,519/50

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

Where a driver creates a perilous situation by driving on the wrong side of the road, the driver of an oncoming vehicle who takes evasive action to avoid collision is not negligent merely because he did not attempt to stop, provided the appellant fails to establish that stopping would have avoided the accident. Damages for loss of use of a vehicle must be satisfactorily proved; in the absence of proof of direct pecuniary loss, the court may award a sum sufficient to compensate for actual out-of-pocket expenses, depreciation, and loss of interest on capital during the period the vehicle was laid up.

Outcome

Judgment varied; damages reduced from Sh. 3,879/50 to Sh. 2,519/50

Facts

On 23 May 1933, the appellant's driver was driving a motor lorry on the wrong side of the road near Iringa, Tanganyika. The respondents' driver was driving their mail lorry in the opposite direction. When rounding a left-hand curve at about eight miles per hour, the respondents' driver saw the appellant's lorry only four to five yards away, bearing straight down on him. To avoid a collision, the respondents' driver turned slightly more to his left. Although both drivers swerved left and the lorries cleared each other, the respondents' lorry bumped against a rocky wall at the roadside, causing damage. Police evidence established visibility at the curve at nineteen to twenty yards. The respondents sued for Sh. 2,259/50 for repairs and Sh. 1,700 for loss of use at Sh. 50 per day for 34 days. The First Class Subordinate Court awarded Sh. 3,879/50. The High Court dismissed the appellant's first appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondents' driver was negligent in failing to stop his vehicle when he could have seen the appellant's vehicle at a distance of nineteen to twenty yards.
  2. Whether the appellant's driver's negligence in driving on the wrong side of the road was the direct cause of the accident.
  3. Whether the respondents are entitled to damages for loss of use of their vehicle during the repair period and, if so, how such damages should be assessed.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed in part.
  • Judgment for respondents varied from Sh. 3,879/50 to Sh. 2,519/50.
  • Damages for loss of use reduced from Sh. 1,700 to Sh. 340 (Sh. 10 per day for 34 days).
  • Appellant to have one-third of Court fees and costs in this Court and the High Court.
  • Respondents to have two-thirds of their costs of the appeals and full costs on the amended decree amount in the Court below.
  • Costs to be set off.

Rules and key headnotes

Negligence — Motor Vehicle Accidents — Causation — Driver on Wrong Side of Road
Where a driver creates a perilous situation by driving on the wrong side of the road, he is responsible for damages resulting from the evasive action taken by the driver of an oncoming vehicle to avoid collision, even if that evasive action results in damage to the oncoming vehicle.
Negligence — Agony of the Moment — Standard of Care
A driver who is placed in a perilous situation by the negligence of another is not to be held to the same standard of care as would apply in ordinary circumstances, and the negligent party is not permitted to be minutely critical of the conduct of the driver who was forced to take evasive action.
Negligence — Burden of Proof — Alternative Courses of Action
Where a defendant alleges that an accident could have been avoided had the plaintiff taken a different course of action, the onus is on the defendant to establish that the alternative course would in fact have avoided the accident.
Loss of Use of Property — Motor Vehicles — Proof of Loss
A claim for damages for pecuniary loss arising from deprivation of use of a vehicle must be satisfactorily proved, and the fact that the defendant has not specifically denied the claim does not relieve the plaintiff of the burden of proof.
Loss of Use of Property — Assessment in Absence of Direct Proof
Where a plaintiff is deprived of the use of property through the negligence of another but fails to prove direct pecuniary loss, the court may award such sum as will be sufficient to compensate for actual out-of-pocket expenses, depreciation, and loss of interest on capital during the period the property was unavailable for use.
Speculative Damages — Hypothetical Government Contracts
Damages based on a rate that would be paid by Government if Government had hired the vehicle and kept it idle are purely speculative and cannot be awarded in the absence of evidence that Government would in fact have hired that particular vehicle.

Cases cited (10)

  • The Otranto (1930) 47 TLR 163
  • 2 T.L.R. p. 76
  • The Greta Holme [1897] AC 596
  • The Edison (1931-1932) 37 Com Cas 182
  • 99 L.J. (K.B.) p. 57
  • United States of America v The Laird Line Ltd [1924] AC 286
  • The Steamship Valeria [1922] 2 AC 242
  • The Mediana [1900] AC 113
  • J. B. Ross and Co v C. R. Scriven and Others (1916) 43 Cal 1001
  • The Mapessa [1906] PD 95

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ladha v Durrheimm Brothers (Civil Appeal 14-1934.) [1935] EACA 9 (1 January 1935)
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.