Wakilii

Milly Masembe v Sugar Corporation of Uganda Limited and Another (Civil Suit 646 of 1995)

High Court · [1997] UGHC 32 · 1997 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 a road traffic accident
Decision
Judgment for the plaintiff with damages totalling UGX 12,607,500 plus interest and costs, with defendants paying 80% of the decretal amount in equal shares

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 court found the second defendant 80% negligent in leaving the tractor and trailer unlit and unattended on the road at night without warning signs. The first defendant was vicariously liable. Both defendants owed a duty of care to the plaintiff as a road user. The plaintiff was awarded special damages for lost cash, films, medical expenses, and loss of earnings, and general damages for pain and injuries sustained. The doctrine of novus actus interveniens did not apply to property loss caused by third parties at the scene, as such loss was foreseeable.

Outcome

Judgment for the plaintiff with damages totalling UGX 12,607,500 plus interest and costs, with defendants paying 80% of the decretal amount in equal shares

Facts

On 23 December 1993 at about 8:00 p.m., the plaintiff was a passenger in a minibus travelling from Kampala to Jinja when it collided with a stationary tractor (Reg. No. UXJ 462) and trailer (Reg. No. UWV 469) loaded with sugar cane along the Kampala-Jinja road near the junction to Namaganga. The tractor had broken down during the day and was parked in the middle of the road without lights, warning signs, or a guard. The minibus overturned, killing some passengers and injuring others. The plaintiff sustained multiple fractures including her left ribs, superior and inferior pubic ramus, and dislocation of the left sacro-iliac joint. She was hospitalised for two months and lost property including cash and films. The tractor was owned by the first defendant and driven by the second defendant, its employee.

Issues

  1. Whether the accident was caused by negligence of the second defendant in the course of his employment.
  2. Whether the first defendant is vicariously liable for the negligence of the second defendant.
  3. Whether both defendants owed a duty of care to the plaintiff.
  4. Whether the plaintiff lost any property as a result of the accident and if so whether she is entitled to recover the value of that property.
  5. What remedies are available to the plaintiff.

Orders

  • Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff for UGX 12,607,500.
  • Defendants to pay UGX 1,600,000 (equivalent of KES 100,000) being cash lost by the plaintiff.
  • Defendants to pay UGX 600,000 being the value of 20 packets of film lost.
  • Defendants to pay UGX 407,500 being cost of medical treatment.
  • Defendants to pay UGX 3,000,000 being loss of earnings for two months.
  • Defendants to pay UGX 7,000,000 general damages for pain and injuries.
  • Defendants to pay 10% per annum interest on the decretal sum from date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Defendants to pay costs of the suit.
  • Defendants having been 80% to blame shall pay 80% of the decretal amount in equal shares.

Rules and key headnotes

Negligence — Road Traffic Accidents — Duty to Warn Other Road Users
Leaving an unlit vehicle on the road unattended and without any warning that the vehicle has broken down is an act of negligence on the part of the person who leaves that vehicle on the road in such a position.
Vicarious Liability — Employer Liability for Employee's Negligence
An employer is vicariously liable for the negligent acts of an employee committed in the course of employment.
Duty of Care — Foreseeability of Harm
A person owes a duty of care to others when he can foresee that his act or omission will injure those others. A road user who leaves an obstacle on the road owes a duty of care to all other road users who may be affected.
Special Damages — Requirement of Pleading and Proof
Special damages must not only be pleaded but must be proved, preferably by documentary evidence such as receipts.
Causation — Novus Actus Interveniens — Intervening Acts of Third Parties
The doctrine of novus actus interveniens does not apply where the intervention of a third party is the very kind of thing which is likely to happen if the alleged want of care takes place. Where an accident is foreseeable as a result of negligence, loss of property by theft at the scene by villagers is also foreseeable and does not break the chain of causation.
Joinder of Parties — Plaintiff's Right to Choose Defendants
No plaintiff can be forced to proceed against a defendant whom he or she does not wish to litigate against in a case of tort. A plaintiff being dominus litis cannot be compelled to sue a person for damages in respect of a tort if he does not wish to sue such person.

Cases cited (10)

  • Santana Fernandes v Kara Axjan & Sons [1967] EA 673
  • Horwell v London General Omnibus Co. Ltd [1877] 2 Ex.D.365
  • Kihambi & Another v Mahithi & Another [1969] EA 70
  • Karisa & Another v Solanki & Another [1969] EA 311
  • Muwonge v Attorney General of Uganda [1967] EA 17
  • Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562
  • Kampala City Council v Makaye [1972] EA 446
  • Rima & Others vs Hirai
  • Lord v Pacific Steam Navigation Co. [1913] 1 All E.R. 211
  • Heyne v Harwood [1935] 1 KB 146

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Milly Masembe v Sugar Corporation of Uganda Limited and Another (Civil Suit 646 of 1995) [1997] UGHC 32 (25 August 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.