Wakilii

Nabbale and 2 Others v The Registered Trustees of Kampala Archdiocese T/A St. Francis Hospital Nsambya (Civil Appeal 49 of 2021)

High Court · [2024] UGHCCD 144 · 2024 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from decision of Uganda Medical and Dental Practitioners' Council dated 22 October 2021 concerning alleged medical negligence
Decision
Appeal dismissed; Medical Council decision upheld

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 respondent's medical personnel were not negligent in failing to advise the 2nd and 3rd appellants about Retinopathy of Prematurity (ROP) screening during the 1st appellant's critical hospitalisation. The court upheld the Medical Council's finding that saving the critically ill premature infant's life was the priority and that moving her for screening would have endangered her life. The recommendation to screen at discharge was consistent with professional standards and prevailing limitations in retinal specialist availability.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; Medical Council decision upheld

Facts

The 3rd appellant gave spontaneous delivery to the 1st appellant on 27 February 2018 at the respondent hospital. The 1st appellant was born prematurely weighing 900 grams and remained in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit for 55 days suffering numerous life-threatening complications of prematurity. The respondent recommended at discharge on 23 April 2018 that the parents take the 1st appellant to Mengo Eye Care clinic for ROP screening and return for review on 3 May 2018. The 1st appellant was subsequently found to have ROP stage 5 with total retinal detachment and permanent blindness. The appellants filed a complaint with the Uganda Medical and Dental Practitioners' Council alleging the respondent's medical personnel were negligent in failing to advise them about ROP screening during hospitalisation. The Council found no professional negligence. The appellants appealed to the High Court seeking findings of negligence and compensation exceeding UGX 120,000,000.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondent's medical personnel were negligent in failing to advise and disclose information to the 2nd and 3rd appellants regarding the condition of the 1st appellant's eyesight, resulting in permanent blindness.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Decision of the Uganda Medical and Dental Practitioners' Council dated 22 October 2021 upheld.
  • Each party to meet its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Tort Law — Medical Negligence — Standard of Care — Test of Ordinary Skilled Professional
The test of whether an act amounts to professional negligence is that of the standard of an ordinary skilled man exercising and professing to have that specialty skill. A doctor is not negligent if he exercises the ordinary skill of an ordinary competent man professing to have that special skill.
Tort Law — Medical Negligence — Duty of Care — Prioritisation of Life-Threatening Conditions
Where a premature infant is suffering multiple life-threatening complications requiring intensive care, medical personnel are not negligent for prioritising the saving of the infant's life over screening for conditions that can be addressed after stabilisation, where moving the infant for screening would endanger her life.
Tort Law — Medical Negligence — Burden of Proof — Expert Evidence
In medical negligence claims, the onus is on the plaintiff to establish negligence. Where expert testimony from both parties confirms that the medical team acted in accordance with professional standards and current guidelines for managing preterm infants, a court will not find negligence.
Tort Law — Medical Negligence — Accepted Practice — Multiple Schools of Thought
A doctor is not negligent if he has acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical professionals skilled in that particular field. Where there are two or more proper standards, conforming with one of those standards means the doctor is not negligent.
Administrative Law — Judicial Review — Appeal from Professional Regulatory Body — Standard of Review
When determining matters concerning the conduct of a member of a profession, it is the professional's own colleagues of good repute and competency who are in the reasonable position to determine the matter. Courts will give deference to the findings of professional regulatory bodies applying their expert knowledge, and will not substitute their judgment except in cases of obvious and glaring negligence.
Evidence — Expert Evidence — Conflicting Expert Opinions — Weight to be Attached
In a case of two expert witnesses giving conflicting opinions, the opinion which supports the direct evidence should be accepted. Where all expert witnesses agree on the critical facts, the court should accept their consensus assessment of whether professional standards were met.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Patient's Charter Article 10

Cases cited (7)

  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Poonam Verma v Ashwin Patel AIR 1996 SC 2111
  • Maynard v West Midlands regional Health Authority [1984] 1 WLR 634
  • Yeo Peng Hock Henry v Pai Lily [2001] 3 SLR(R) 555
  • Abi v CBN (2012) 3 NWLR p.1
  • Sarah Watsemwa Goseltine and Another v The Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 675 of 2006)
  • Dr Sandys Arthur v Ghana Medical & Dental Council [2012] 52 GMJ 109

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nabbale and 2 Others v The Registered Trustees of Kampala Archdiocese T_A St. Francis Hospital Nsambya (Civil Appeal 49 of 2021) [2024] UGHCCD 144 (6 September 2024)
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.