Wakilii

Nambale v Construction Enterprises 'PUT' SARAJEVO Ltd (HCT-040CV-CS 123 of 2000)

High Court · [2006] UGCOMMC 70 · 2006 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 property damage during road construction works
Decision
Judgment entered for plaintiff with damages substantially reduced from the claim; defendant ordered to pay damages and costs with interest

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 contractor was liable as an independent contractor for negligent damage to the plaintiff's foundation during road construction works. The contractor's defence that the plaintiff's foundation encroached on the road reserve failed for lack of proof of a ministerial order establishing such reserve. The court rejected the plaintiff's inflated damage claim based on speculative losses and awarded only the cost of repairing the damaged foundation at UGX 1,500,000 plus nominal damages of UGX 10,000 for soil dumping on an adjacent plot.

Outcome

Judgment entered for plaintiff with damages substantially reduced from the claim; defendant ordered to pay damages and costs with interest

Facts

The plaintiff owned two adjoining plots (40 and 42) in Sironko township along a road being upgraded by the defendant contractor. Plot 40 had a foundation built to DPC level; plot 42 was undeveloped. During road construction in April 1998, the defendant's workmen and machinery damaged the foundation on plot 40, causing cracks, and deposited soil on plot 42. The plaintiff claimed UGX 33,884,000 in damages. The defendant admitted some damage but contended the foundation encroached on the road reserve and offered to repair it, which the plaintiff rejected. The foundation had been idle since construction stopped in 1990. A site visit revealed three damage spots on the foundation and no visible damage to plot 42.

Issues

  1. Whether the works by the defendant in upgrading the Sironko-Kapchorwa road were done in accordance with the specifications of the Ministry of Works
  2. What was the extent of the damage to the plaintiff's property in execution of the works by the defendant
  3. Who is liable for the damage so caused
  4. What remedies are available to the plaintiff

Orders

  • The defendant shall pay the plaintiff UGX 1,500,000 for repair of the damage to the foundation on plot 40.
  • The defendant shall pay the plaintiff nominal damages of UGX 10,000 for dumping soil on plot 42.
  • The plaintiff shall recover the costs of the suit.
  • The amounts awarded shall carry interest at court rate from the date of judgment until payment in full.

Rules and key headnotes

Tort Law — Independent Contractors — Liability for Negligent Acts — Distinction from Agency
An independent contractor is liable for negligent acts in the performance of a contract where the contractor uses their own skills and expertise to carry out specified work and is not under the direct control or supervision of the employer.
Administrative Law — Road Reserves — Ministerial Orders — Burden of Proof
Under the Access to Roads Act s.4, a ministerial order prescribing the distance from the centre of a road within which no building shall be erected becomes effective only from the date of publication and does not have retrospective effect. A party asserting that a building encroaches on a road reserve must prove the existence of such an order.
Damages & Quantum — Assessment of Damages — Rejection of Speculative Claims
Where a plaintiff claims damages based on speculative losses such as loss of construction time and rental income for a structure that was incomplete and had been idle for years, and where an offer to repair was rejected, the court will disregard exaggerated assessments and award only the actual cost of repair to restore the plaintiff to the position before the wrong.
Damages & Quantum — Special Damages — Pleading and Proof Requirements
Special damages must be specially pleaded and specifically proved. General damages are within the court's discretion and are awarded to put the plaintiff in the position before the wrong.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (3)

  • Selle v Associated Motor Boat Co Ltd [1968] EA 123
  • Pool Nsuguga v Attorney General (1993) 1 KALR 33
  • Shamji v Bhatt [1965] EA 789

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nambale v Construction Enterprises 'PUT' SARAJEVO Ltd (HCT-040CV-CS 123 of 2000) [2006] UGCommC 70 (22 April 2006)
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.