Wakilii

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

High Court · [1997] UGHCCD 3 · 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 negligence in a road traffic accident
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff with damages awarded in full as specified

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 second defendant was negligent in leaving his tractor and trailer unlit and unattended on the road without warning signs, and was 80% to blame for the accident. The first defendant was vicariously liable for the second defendant's negligence as his employer. The defendants owed a duty of care to the plaintiff as a road user. The plaintiff was entitled to recover special damages for property lost, medical expenses, and loss of earnings, and general damages for pain and suffering. The doctrine of novus actus interveniens did not apply to losses caused by theft at the accident scene, as such losses were reasonably foreseeable.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff with damages awarded in full as specified

Facts

On 28 December 1993, the plaintiff was a passenger in a minibus traveling from Kampala to Jinja when the minibus collided with a stationary tractor with an attached trailer loaded with sugar canes. The tractor, owned by the first defendant and driven by the second defendant, had broken down and was left parked on the road without adequate warning signs, reflectors, or lighting at approximately 8:00 p.m. The minibus overturned, injuring the plaintiff and killing some passengers. The plaintiff sustained fractures to her left ribs and pelvis, and dislocation of her left sacroiliac joint. She was hospitalized for two months at Kawolo and Mulago hospitals. The plaintiff also lost 100,000 Kenya shillings in cash and 20 packets of photo films worth UGX 600,000, allegedly taken by people who came to the accident scene. Before the accident, the plaintiff ran an import business from Kenya with monthly profits of approximately UGX 1,800,000, which she could not continue during her hospitalization.

Issues

  1. Whether or not the accident was caused by negligence of the second defendant in the course of his employment.
  2. Whether or not the first defendant is vicariously liable for negligence of the second defendant.
  3. Whether or not both defendants owed 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 said property.
  5. What are the remedies available to the plaintiff.

Orders

  • Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of UGX 12,607,500.
  • The defendants to pay to the plaintiff: (a) UGX 1,600,000 equivalent to 100,000 Kenya shillings lost; (b) UGX 600,000 value of 20 films lost; (c) UGX 407,500 cost of medical treatment; (d) UGX 3,000,000 loss of earnings for two months; (e) UGX 7,000,000 general damages.
  • The defendants to pay 10% per annum interest on the decretal sum from date of judgment until payment in full.
  • The defendants to pay the costs of the suit.
  • The defendants, being 80% to blame, to pay 80% of the decretal amount in equal shares.

Rules and key headnotes

Negligence — Duty of Care — Road Users — Broken Down Vehicles
A driver who leaves an unlit vehicle on the road, unattended and without warning signs indicating that the vehicle has broken down, commits an act of negligence and owes a duty of care to other road users who can reasonably be foreseen to be injured by such omission.
Vicarious Liability — Employers — Acts in Course of Employment
An employer is vicariously liable for the negligent acts of its employee committed in the course of employment, including negligent acts by a driver employed to operate the employer's vehicle.
Duty of Care — Neighbour Principle — Foreseeability
A person owes a duty of care to others when he can reasonably foresee that his act or omission will injure those others who are so closely and directly affected by his conduct that he ought reasonably to have them in contemplation.
Parties — Plaintiff as Dominus Litis — Right to Choose Defendants
A plaintiff, being dominus litis, cannot be compelled to sue a person for damages in respect of a tort if the plaintiff does not wish to sue that person. The plaintiff has the right to decide against whom to proceed and cannot be forced to litigate against defendants not of their choosing.
Special Damages — Property Loss — Proof Requirements
Special damages must not only be pleaded but must be strictly proved. A plaintiff claiming loss of property must provide evidence, including receipts where possible, to establish both the fact and quantum of the loss.
Novus Actus Interveniens — Foreseeability — Theft at Accident Scene
The doctrine of novus actus interveniens does not apply where the intervening act is the very kind of thing which is likely to happen as a result of the negligence alleged. Where a defendant's negligence causes an accident, losses caused by theft of property by persons attending the accident scene are reasonably foreseeable and recoverable, as it is common knowledge that people gather at accident scenes and some may help themselves to victims' property.
Loss of Earnings — Business Interruption — Proof and Assessment
A plaintiff who establishes that they were conducting profitable business before an accident and were unable to continue that business due to injuries sustained is entitled to recover damages for loss of earnings during the period of incapacity. The assessment may be reduced from the plaintiff's estimate to account for probable business interruptions such as illness or personal obligations.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (10)

  • Santana Fernandes v Kara Asjan & 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 314
  • 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 v Hirai [1974] EA 59
  • 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] UGHCCD 3 (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.