Wakilii

Nabwani v Dr. Bitamazire (Civil Appeal No. 39 of 2016)

High Court · [2022] UGHCCD 98 · 2022 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from the decision of the Uganda Medical and Dental Practitioners Council dismissing a complaint of professional misconduct
Decision
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Uganda Medical and Dental Practitioners Council exonerating the Respondent 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 appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the respondent removed her uterus during surgical operations in May and July 2012. Ultra-scan reports post-surgery showed a normal uterus, contradicting the appellant's claim. The Medical Council properly evaluated the evidence and correctly found no professional misconduct. The appeal was filed within time because the statutory period runs from when the decision and proceedings were certified and availed to the appellant, not from the date of the decision itself. Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Uganda Medical and Dental Practitioners Council exonerating the Respondent upheld

Facts

The appellant was admitted to Divine Medical Centre on 28 May 2012 with abdominal pain. On 29 May 2012, the respondent, a medical practitioner, performed surgery diagnosing acute appendicitis and multiple uterine fibroids. An appendectomy was performed and fibroids were removed. The appellant was readmitted on 28 July 2012 for an epigastric hernia operation. Subsequently, the appellant complained that she had ceased menstruating and claimed her uterus had been removed without consent. She lodged a complaint with the Uganda Medical and Dental Practitioners Council on 4 January 2013. Ultra-scan reports from August and December 2012 showed a normal uterus. Later reports from Kampala Imaging Centre and Mulago Hospital in 2012-2014 gave contradictory findings regarding the presence of the uterus. The Council conducted an inquiry and found the appellant's claim unproven, exonerating the respondent. The appellant appealed to the High Court.

Issues

  1. Whether the Uganda Medical and Dental Practitioners Council erred in finding that the Respondent was not guilty of professional misconduct.
  2. Whether the Council properly evaluated the evidence before arriving at its decision.
  3. Whether the Council followed the correct procedure during the inquiry under Part VII of the Medical and Dental Practitioners Act Cap 272.
  4. Whether the appeal was filed within the statutory period under s.38(1) of the Medical and Dental Practitioners Act.
  5. Whether the Respondent removed the Appellant's uterus during surgical operations conducted on 29 May 2012 and 28 July 2012.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondent.
  • Preliminary objection dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Time for Appeal — Commencement of Statutory Period
The statutory period within which to appeal runs from the date the decision and proceedings are certified and availed to the appellant, not from the date the decision is delivered. Time taken by the tribunal or court in preparing the record of appeal ought to be excluded in computing the time within which to appeal.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Civil Cases — Balance of Probabilities
In civil cases, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff or complainant to prove his or her case on a balance of probabilities. Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he or she asserts must prove that those facts exist.
Evidence — Contradictory Evidence — Resolution of Contradictions
Where medical reports contain grave contradictions and inconsistencies that go to the root of the case and these contradictions are unexplained and unreconciled, such contradictions must be resolved in favour of the respondent or accused.
Administrative Law — Professional Disciplinary Bodies — Medical Council — Inquiry Procedure
In proceedings under the Medical and Dental Practitioners Act, the complainant is not required to attend every stage of the inquiry. Section 34 requires the person whose conduct is the subject of inquiry to be notified and entitled to be present. The complainant attends only if more evidence or clarification other than the initial complaint is required by the council, akin to criminal proceedings where a complainant attends only as a witness.
Tort Law — Professional Negligence — Medical Negligence — Error of Judgment
Not every error of judgment made by medical professionals constitutes negligence. An error of judgment, in the absence of evidence of unskillfulness or incompetence that risked the patient's life, does not amount to professional misconduct.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (7)

  • Stewards of Gospel Talents Ltd Vs Nelson Onyango H.C.C.A.
  • NIC v Mugenyi [1987] HCB 28
  • Buso Foundation Ltd v Bob Male Phillips (High Court Civil Appeal No. 40 of 2009)
  • Sarah Watsemwo and Another v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 675 of 2006)
  • Nsubuga v Kavuma [1978] HCB 307
  • Oryem David v Omony Phillip (High Court Civil Suit No. 100 of 2018)
  • Okecho Alfred v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2001)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nabwani v Dr. Bitamazire (Civil Appeal No. 39 of 2016) [2022] UGHCCD 98 (26 May 2022)
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.