Wakilii

Namukose v JPMAB Ltd (Civil Suit 47 of 2022)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 183 · 2025 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for negligence and damages arising from a motor vehicle accident. Matter proceeded ex parte after defendant's counsel failed to appear at hearing.
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff with declarations of negligence and vicarious liability, and awards of special and general damages with interest and costs

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 High Court held that the defendant's driver was negligent in causing a motor vehicle accident by driving on the wrong side of the road and colliding with the plaintiff's vehicle. The defendant was vicariously liable for the driver's negligence committed in the course of employment. The plaintiff was awarded UGX 7,000,000 in special damages and UGX 100,000,000 in general damages for property damage and inconvenience, plus 18% interest per annum from judgment until full payment.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff with declarations of negligence and vicarious liability, and awards of special and general damages with interest and costs

Facts

On 27 September 2020, the plaintiff's driver was driving a Fuso truck (UBG 720L) from Mbarara carrying matooke when the defendant's trailer driver (Bahezi Amisi) driving vehicles RAE 836A and RL2581 negligently swerved from his lane onto the wrong side of the road at Nkoni village on the Masaka-Kampala Highway and collided with the plaintiff's vehicle. The accident resulted in three deaths (the plaintiff's driver Muzaya Asadi, and two cargo owners Turyakira Mathias and Byesiga Dan) and serious injuries to the turn man Tenywa Salim. The plaintiff's vehicle was damaged to written-off value. The matter proceeded ex parte after the defendant's counsel failed to appear at the hearing despite proper service.

Issues

  1. Whether the Defendant's Driver was negligent?
  2. Whether the Defendant is vicariously liable for the negligence of the Driver?
  3. Whether the Plaintiff suffered any damage as a result of the accident?
  4. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • A declaration that the Defendant's Driver negligently caused the said accident.
  • A declaration that the Defendant is vicariously liable for the negligence of the Driver.
  • The Plaintiff is awarded special damages of UGX 7,000,000.
  • The Plaintiff is awarded general damages of UGX 100,000,000 for the damage of her Motor-Vehicle and other inconveniences.
  • Interest on special and general damages at 18% per annum from the date of judgment till payment in full.
  • Costs are awarded to the Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Negligence — Elements — Duty of Care, Breach, and Causation
For a suit to disclose negligence, it must show that the defendant owed the injured party a duty to exercise due care, that the defendant failed to exercise due care, and that the defendant's failure was the cause of the injury or damage suffered.
Negligence — Standard of Care — Reasonable Person Test
Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. The standard of care expected is that of a reasonable person, and proof of breach of duty is achieved by adducing evidence of unreasonable conduct in light of foreseeable risks.
Vicarious Liability — Employer Liability for Employee Acts
An employer is in general liable for the acts of employees or agents while in the course of the employer's business or within the scope of employment. This liability arises whether the acts are for the benefit of the employer or for the benefit of the agent. An act may be done in the course of employment so as to make the master liable even though it is done contrary to the orders of the master, and even if the servant is acting deliberately, wantonly, negligently, or criminally, or for his own behalf, provided what he did is merely a manner of carrying out what he was employed to carry out.
Burden of Proof — Balance of Probabilities in Civil Matters
In civil proceedings, the burden of proof lies upon the person alleging the particular fact. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities, which requires evidence of such quality that a tribunal properly directing its mind to the law and facts would think it more probable than not. When a plaintiff has led evidence establishing their claim, they have executed the legal burden, and the evidential burden shifts to the defendant to rebut the plaintiff's claims.
Damages — Special Damages — Strict Pleading and Proof Requirement
Special damages are damages which are ascertainable and quantifiable before the action and must be specifically pleaded and proved by the claimant. Where a plaintiff claims special damages for the value of a damaged motor vehicle but fails to attach a valuation report to prove the claimed amount, the court cannot award damages under that head as special damages must be strictly pleaded and proved.
Damages — General Damages — Assessment Principles
General damages are awarded at the discretion of the court and the purpose is to restore the aggrieved person to the position they would have been in had the breach or wrong not occurred. In assessing general damages, the court should be guided by the estimated value of the subject matter, the economic inconvenience that the plaintiff may have been put through, and the nature and extent of the injury suffered.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (12)

  • Blyth v Birmingham Water Works (1856) 11 Ex 78
  • Kateralwire v Lwanga [1989-90] HCB 56
  • Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562
  • Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372
  • Kampala Bottlers Ltd v Domanico (U) Ltd (SCCA No. 22 of 1992)
  • Asha Ali Suleman and Another v Nassanga Aysha Salma and Another (Civil Suit No. 338 of 2015)
  • Muwonge v Attorney General [1967] EA 17
  • Provincial Insurance Co of East Africa Ltd v Mordekai Mwanga Nandwa [1995-98] EA 289
  • Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341
  • Kibimba Rice Ltd v Umar Salim (SC Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1992)
  • Robert Cuossens v Attorney General (SCCA No. 8 of 1999)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Namukose v JPMAB Ltd (Civil Suit 47 of 2022) [2025] UGHC 183 (16 April 2025)
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.