Wakilii

Milly Masembe v Sugar Corporation and Kagiri Richard (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2000)

Supreme Court · [2000] UGSC 39 · 2000 Appeal Allowed in Part AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second appeal to the Supreme Court from the Court of Appeal in a negligence suit for personal injuries arising from a road traffic collision.
Decision
Appeal allowed in part; High Court judgment for the plaintiff reinstated with variations, liability re-apportioned 60% to the taxi driver and 40% to the tractor driver, with the respondents jointly and severally liable.

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part. It held that the Court of Appeal had misdirected itself on photographic evidence in exonerating the tractor driver, and that the collision was caused by the negligence of both drivers: the tractor driver for leaving the unlit broken-down trailer partly in the driving lane without adequate warning, and the taxi driver for failing to keep a proper look-out on a straight, clear road. Restoring joint liability, the Court re-apportioned blame to 60% against the taxi driver and 40% against the tractor driver, varying the trial court's 80:20 split. The cross-appeal succeeded in part and the High Court judgment was reinstated with variations, including joint and several liability and interest on special damages from the date of filing suit.

Outcome

Appeal allowed in part; High Court judgment for the plaintiff reinstated with variations, liability re-apportioned 60% to the taxi driver and 40% to the tractor driver, with the respondents jointly and severally liable.

Facts

On 28 December 1993 at about 8 p.m. on the Kampala–Jinja road, a tractor-drawn trailer loaded with sugar cane, owned by Sugar Corporation of Uganda Ltd and driven by its servant Richard Kagiri, broke down. The driver left it parked on the extreme left side of the road facing Jinja, partly off the road but occupying part of the driving lane, while he went to fetch a mechanic. The trailer was not lit; it had reflectors affixed to the rear but no other effective warning of its presence. Later that night a mini-bus taxi travelling to Jinja, in which Milly Masembe was a passenger, hit and scraped the rear of the trailer. The taxi was thrown forward, overturned and came to rest about 36 metres away. Masembe sustained serious personal injuries, was hospitalised at Mulago for about two months, lost property and income. The road was straight, tarmacked and in good repair, with no on-coming vehicle at the time. The driver of the taxi was never made a party and did not testify.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court of Appeal, as the first appellate court, properly re-evaluated the evidence as a whole.
  2. Whether the stationary tractor-drawn trailer was dangerously parked and whether adequate warning signs of its presence had been placed on the road.
  3. Whether the driver of the tractor/trailer (the 2nd respondent) was negligent or blameless for the collision.
  4. How liability for the collision should be apportioned between the tractor driver and the taxi driver.
  5. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to consider the appellant's cross-appeal.
  6. Whether the special damages for loss of earnings were strictly proved and the proper order as to interest.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed in part.
  • Judgment and order of the Court of Appeal set aside.
  • Judgment of the High Court reinstated, with variations as proposed by Oder JSC.
  • Liability apportioned 40% to the 2nd respondent (tractor driver) and 60% to the driver of the mini-bus taxi.
  • The two respondents held liable jointly and severally.
  • Interest on special damages to run from the date of filing the suit, and on general damages from the date of judgment, at 13% per annum until payment in full.

Rules and key headnotes

Negligence — Stationary unlit vehicle on the highway — Whether leaving it constitutes negligence
Leaving an unlit and unattended vehicle on the road, without any warning that it has broken down, is an act of negligence; but such negligence is not inherently or always more blameworthy than other negligent acts, and the inference of negligence may be rebutted by appropriate evidence, each case being assessed on its own circumstances.
Negligence — Duty of a moving driver to avoid foreseeable obstacles
A driver is bound to anticipate reasonably foreseeable obstacles on the road and to keep a proper look-out at a reasonable speed; a reasonable driver does not hit every stationary object in his path merely because it is wrongfully there, and a failure to take reasonable steps to avoid a visible stationary vehicle is negligence.
Negligence — Contributory negligence — Apportionment of liability
Apportionment of blame between tortfeasors must result from comparing their negligent conduct to determine the degree to which each was at fault, both as to causation of the wrong and the unreasonableness of the conduct; an appellate court will not interfere with a trial court's apportionment save in exceptional cases involving an error of principle or a manifestly erroneous result.
Appeals — Duty of the first appellate court to re-evaluate evidence
A first appellate court has a duty to re-hear the case and re-evaluate the evidence as a whole and reach its own conclusions, while carefully weighing the judgment appealed from; failure to re-evaluate the evidence as a whole is itself a matter of law that may ground a further appeal.
Second appeal — Power of the Supreme Court to re-consider evidence
On a civil appeal the Supreme Court may re-consider the evidence, even on a matter of fact only, where the first appellate court has differed from the trial court on findings of fact, in order to determine whether the first appellate court erred in doing so.
Special damages — Requirement of strict proof
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved; a claim for lost profit cannot succeed merely on the plaintiff's assertion without other evidence to confirm it, particularly where the figure is improbable on its face.
Interest — Discretion of the court and date from which interest runs
An award of interest is within the discretion of the court and will not be interfered with on appeal unless exercised on a wrong principle; interest normally runs on special damages from the date of filing suit and on general damages from the date of judgment until payment in full.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (18)

  • Selle and Another v Associated Motor Boat Company Ltd and Others (1968) EA 123
  • Pandya v R (1957) EA 336
  • Ernest Ocheng v Otieno Civil Appeal No.92/73 (unreported)
  • Christopher Kicumandu and Another v. ... Civil Appeal No.7 of 1993 (unreported) per Manyindo, DCJ
  • Khambi v Mahithi (1969) EA 70
  • Karisa and Another v Solanki and Another (1969) EA 318
  • Davies v Mann (1842) 10 M & W 546
  • Andereya Sinzimusi v Gomba Bus Service (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1979)
  • Tart v Chitty and Co (1931) All ER (Rep) 826
  • Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Co Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd (No.2) (1970) EA 469
  • Sietco v Noble Builders (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 35 of 1995)
  • HOBBS vs BAXWELLS (1968) 2 All ER 779
  • Merrill v R.H.E. (1952) 2 Lloyd's Rep 496
  • London Passenger Transport Board v Upson (1949) AC 155
  • Rowlands v. Street (1962) 11 cs.357a
  • Brockhurst v War Office (1957) CLY 2388
  • Grant v Sun Shipping Co Ltd (1948) 2 All ER 238
  • Stapley v Gypsum Mines Ltd (1953) 2 All ER 478

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Milly Masembe v Sugar Corporation and Kagiri Richard (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2000) [2000] UGSC 39 (7 July 2000)
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.