Wakilii

Mikidadi Nsubuga v Gaso Transport Service Co. Ltd. (Civil Suit 80 of 1996)

High Court · [1997] UGHC 28 · 1997 Judgment for Plaintiff (50% Liability) AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for damages arising from motor vehicle accident
Decision
Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff for 50% of the special damages claimed plus nominal general damages, with interest and costs

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 High Court held that both drivers were equally to blame for the head-on collision, apportioning liability at 50% each. The court rejected the defence of inevitable accident, finding that the defendant failed to show the accident could not have been avoided with the greatest care and skill. The plaintiff was awarded 50% of the special damages claimed for loss of vehicle, plus nominal general damages and interest at 40% per annum.

Outcome

Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff for 50% of the special damages claimed plus nominal general damages, with interest and costs

Facts

On 27 November 1995 at about 1700 hours at Kalandazi along the Kampala-Masaka Road, a collision occurred between the plaintiff's Toyota Hiace minibus (registration 518 UBA) and the defendant's Isuzu bus (registration 815 UBA). The accident was a head-on collision. The bus was overtaking a trailer while climbing a slope near a corner when the minibus emerged from a side road (leading to Mitala Maria) and entered the main road. The minibus was damaged beyond repair. According to evidence, the minibus was carrying 21 passengers though licensed for only 14. Both vehicles were being driven at high speed. The minibus driver and passengers died in the collision. The plaintiff sued for damages arising from the total loss of his vehicle, claiming the defendant's driver was negligent.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant's agent/driver was negligent.
  2. Whether the accident was inevitable.
  3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the remedies prayed for in the plaint.
  4. Quantum of damages.

Orders

  • The defendant to pay the plaintiff Shs. 7,500,000/= being special damages.
  • The defendant to pay the plaintiff Shs. 100,000/= being general damages.
  • The defendant to pay the taxed costs of the suit.
  • The defendant to pay interest of 40% per annum on the decretal sum from the date of judgment till full payment.

Rules and key headnotes

Negligence — Contributory Negligence — Apportionment of Liability
Where evidence shows that both drivers in a motor vehicle collision were to blame for failing to exercise reasonable care at a critical moment before the accident, the court may apportion liability equally between them where the evidence does not establish that one driver was more at fault than the other.
Negligence — Inevitable Accident — Burden of Proof
A defendant relying on the plea of inevitable accident must show by adducing evidence that something happened over which the driver had no control and that it could not be avoided by the greatest care and skill. Mere assertion that a vehicle suddenly emerged from a side road at high speed is insufficient to establish inevitable accident where the evidence does not show that the driver kept a proper lookout or took corrective action expected of a competent driver of a public service vehicle.
Negligence — Duty of Care — Standard Expected of Public Service Vehicle Drivers
A driver entering a main road from a side road is required to demonstrate a much higher degree of caution than a driver already on the main road. It is incumbent on such a driver before entering the main road to make sure that it is safe to do so by watching out for vehicles on the main road and stopping altogether where necessary.
Damages — Special Damages — Proof Required
Special damages must be pleaded and strictly proved at trial as being the direct result of the defendant's wrongful act. Claims for survey fees, police report costs, and towing charges must be proved by production of receipts and will be declined where such proof is not adduced.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (5)

  • Fernandes v Noranha (1969) EA 506
  • Schwan v The Albano (1892) P 419
  • Embu Public Road Services v Rumi (1968) EA 22
  • Dewshi v Kuldip's Touring Co (1969) EA 189
  • Oboth Epupi v Uganda Electricity Board (1980) HCB 136

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mikidadi Nsubuga v Gaso Transport Service Co. Ltd. (Civil Suit 80 of 1996) [1997] UGHC 28 (22 October 1997)
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.