Wakilii

Lubega and others v International Ventures Ltd (Civil Suit No. 517 of 1991)

High Court · [1993] UGHCCD 16 · 1993 Judgment for Defendant AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident
Decision
Suit dismissed. No damages awarded to the plaintiffs.

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 plaintiffs failed to prove their case on the balance of probabilities. The defendant driver's explanation for the accident — that he swerved to avoid a head-on collision when the plaintiffs' vehicle approached at high speed on the wrong side of the road — was consistent with the exercise of reasonable care. The plaintiffs became unconscious immediately after the collision and provided no independent eyewitness evidence to corroborate their version. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur did not apply because the defendant explained how the accident occurred and showed no lack of reasonable care. The suit was dismissed with costs to the defendant.

Outcome

Suit dismissed. No damages awarded to the plaintiffs.

Facts

On 26 May 1991 at approximately midday, a collision occurred on the Masaka-Kampala road at Mpungwe, twelve miles from Masaka, between a Peugeot taxi (UXE 872) travelling from Masaka to Kampala and a Land Rover (UPI 066) owned by the defendant and travelling from Kampala to Mbarara. The plaintiffs were passengers in the taxi. The taxi driver died in the collision and both plaintiffs sustained injuries including fractured ribs and a fractured leg. Both plaintiffs testified that they became unconscious immediately after the collision and regained consciousness in Masaka Hospital. The defendant's director, who was driving the Land Rover at the time, testified that as he approached a corner he saw the taxi approaching at high speed on the wrong side of the road. He swerved to his right to avoid a head-on collision, but the taxi also swerved across the road, resulting in the collision on the left side of the road. The taxi was pushed approximately 30 metres off the road into a banana plantation. Police did not visit the scene and no accident report or sketch plan was produced.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant's servant/agent were negligent
  2. Whether the driver of motor vehicle UXE 872 was negligent
  3. Was the accident inevitable
  4. If the defendant is found liable, what is the quantum of damages

Orders

  • Suit dismissed with costs to the defendant.
  • Claim of the third plaintiff dismissed under Order 19 rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules for non-appearance.

Rules and key headnotes

Negligence — Breach of Legal Duty — Elements
The ingredients of negligence as a tort are: (a) a legal duty on the part of A towards B to exercise care in such conduct as falls within the scope of the duty; (b) breach of that duty; and (c) consequential damage to B.
Negligence — Standard of Care — Reasonable Person Test
Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon the considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.
Negligence — Motor Vehicle Accidents — Duty to Anticipate Obstructions
A driver of a motor vehicle on a road is bound to anticipate that there may be things, people, and animals in the way at any moment, and is bound not to drive faster than will permit stopping or deflecting his course at any time to avoid anything he sees after he has seen it.
Res Ipsa Loquitur — Applicability and Conditions
The maxim res ipsa loquitur is not a principle of liability but a rule of evidence. It applies where: (1) the thing complained of must have been under the control of the defendant or someone for whose negligence the defendant is responsible; (2) the accident must be such as would not, in the ordinary course of things, have happened without negligence; and (3) there is an absence of explanation on the part of the defendant.
Res Ipsa Loquitur — Defendant's Explanation Consistent with Care
Where the defendant driver has shown how the accident happened and his explanation is consistent with the exercise of reasonable care, or where the defendant has shown that there was no lack of reasonable care on his part, the maxim res ipsa loquitur does not apply.
Burden of Proof — Balance of Probabilities — Need for Independent Evidence
Where plaintiffs testifying in their own cause became unconscious immediately after the accident and provide no independent witness to corroborate their version of events, they fail to prove their case on the balance of probabilities.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (14)

  • Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks (1856) 11 Ex 781
  • Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562
  • Frederick Senyonga Vs Construction Engineer and Builders Pakwach Arua Road 1979 HCB Page 232
  • Sinzumisi v Gomba Bus Service (Civil Appeal No. 1289 of 1975)
  • Tart Vs chilt} and co 1931 AER Pages 828 - 829
  • Catherine Kiwanuka v Attorney General (HGC No. 69 of 1982)
  • Kizito Vs Libyan Arab Bank for foreign Trade Development 1982 HCB P 126 at P 127
  • Hoe Vs Ministry of Health 1954 LJOB Pages 66, 87. - 88
  • Bmbu public Road Services Vs Rumi 1968 EA P 22
  • Nsiri Mulidani vs Kazzar Bin 1960 SA 20
  • Barkway Vs South water Transport Co Ltd 1950. 1 All ER 3 598
  • Naumbe V.g Eiiembe Minis 1975 HC3 Pan ? 152
  • Nabulya Vs Kalibela 1975 HCB P 386
  • Vi cent Njuba Mugweri Vs Bus service Co M/s Muko Waiswa 1972 HCB P 193

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Lubega and others v International Ventures Ltd (Civil Suit No. 517 of 1991) [1993] UGHCCD 16 (3 December 1993)
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.