Wakilii

Musiima v Owodyo Limited (Civil Suit 257 of 1983)

High Court · [1993] UGHC 62 · 1993 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for personal injury arising from a motor vehicle collision
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff with damages and costs awarded

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 held that the defendant's bus driver was negligent in causing the collision by leaving his side of the road and colliding with the motor scooter on which the plaintiff was a passenger. The defendant company was vicariously liable for the acts of its employee. The defence claim of contributory negligence by the scooter rider was rejected as unsupported by evidence. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur did not apply as the point of impact was not established. The plaintiff was awarded general damages of UGX 1,500,000 and special damages of UGX 15,225 with interest.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff with damages and costs awarded

Facts

On 4 April 1980, at approximately 7:00 p.m., the plaintiff Richard Musiima Ssempala was riding as a passenger on a motor scooter driven by his late brother Saulo Kironde on the Kampala-Mityana Road near Kiwambya. They were travelling from Mityana towards Kampala, climbing a hill. A Barliet bus owned by the defendant and registered as UWH 539 was travelling in the opposite direction from Kampala towards Mityana. The plaintiff testified that he saw the bus approaching on their left-hand side. Before he could warn his brother to stop, the bus collided with their scooter. The plaintiff fell into a ditch and sustained a broken left leg and head injuries. His brother died on the spot. The plaintiff was hospitalized at Mulago Hospital for eight months and then transferred to Rubaga Hospital where his injuries continued to be treated.

Issues

  1. Whether the collision was caused by the negligence of the defendant.
  2. Whether there was contributory negligence on the part of the person riding the scooter.
  3. Whether the principle of res ipsa loquitur applies to the facts of this case.
  4. What is the quantum of damages if any?

Orders

  • Judgment for the plaintiff.
  • General damages of UGX 1,500,000 awarded.
  • Special damages of UGX 15,225 awarded.
  • Interest on the total amount at the current court rate from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Hearsay — Admissibility of documents made by deceased person — Evidence Act s.30(b)
A document made by a deceased person in the ordinary course of business or in the discharge of professional duty is admissible in evidence under section 30(b) of the Evidence Act where the maker is dead and the document was created in the ordinary course of duty.
Tort Law — Negligence — Motor vehicle collision — Standard of care owed by driver
A driver owes a duty of care to other road users to keep to his side of the road and not to encroach on the side of oncoming traffic. Breach of this duty causing collision constitutes negligence.
Tort Law — Vicarious liability — Employer liability for employee acts in course of employment
An employer is vicariously liable for the negligent acts of its employee committed in the course of employment.
Tort Law — Negligence — Res ipsa loquitur — Conditions for application
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies where: (1) the thing which caused the damage was under the control and management of the defendant or someone for whom he has the right to control; (2) the occurrence is such that it would not have happened without negligence; and (3) there is no evidence as to why or how the occurrence took place. The doctrine does not apply where the point of impact and circumstances of the accident are not clearly established.
Damages & Quantum — General damages — Assessment for personal injuries — Permanent disability
In assessing general damages for personal injuries, the court considers the nature and extent of injuries sustained, the pain and suffering endured, the duration of treatment, the degree of permanent disability, and the impact on the plaintiff's quality of life. Awards in comparable cases provide guidance but must be adjusted for the specific circumstances of each case.
Damages & Quantum — Special damages — Requirement of pleading and proof
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and proved. The plaintiff must provide receipts or other documentary evidence to substantiate claims for special damages.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (11)

  • Re Koscot Interplanetary (UK) Ltd [1972] 3 All ER 829
  • Hanziri & Or. vs. Joseph Kambanza [1974] HCB
  • Bikwatirizo v Railways Corporation [1971] EA 83
  • William Musisi vs. Charles Ssemwogerere 1982 HCB 70
  • Charles Kyasanku vs. UTC (1981) HCB 87
  • Patrick Kakooza vs. Larco Concrete Products and Another 1981 HCB 89
  • Manyanja vs. UTC (1981) HCB 85
  • William Subudde vs. John Mukiibi 1981 HCB 84
  • Joyce Muwanika & 5 others vs. UTC Ltd. 1981 HCB 82
  • Kananura Melvin Consulting Engineers vs. Connie Kabanda (Civil Appeal No. 37 of 199)
  • Kampala City Council v Nakaye [1972] EA 446

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Musiima v Owodyo Limited (Civil Suit 257 of 1983) [1993] UGHC 62 (2 September 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.