Wakilii

Ntale Joshua and 5 Others v Sseruyange Godfrey and Another (Land Civil Case No.0035 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 1558 · 2025 Judgment for Defendant AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for compensation arising from alleged negligent driving causing death
Decision
Suit dismissed with costs to the defendants

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 High Court dismissed a claim for compensation arising from the death of Kalangwa Everest in a road traffic accident. The court held that the 5th and 6th plaintiffs lacked locus standi as they had not obtained letters of administration at the time of filing suit. On the merits, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove negligence on the part of the 1st defendant driver, accepting evidence that the deceased threw himself in front of the moving vehicle. The court concluded that the deceased's own negligence caused his death and dismissed the suit with costs to the defendants.

Outcome

Suit dismissed with costs to the defendants

Facts

On 24 July 2023 at approximately 2:00pm, Kalangwa Everest was walking beside the Kampala-Hoima highway at Kabindo cell, Buswabulango, Lwamata town council in Kiboga district when he was struck by motor vehicle UBA 424 D, a Toyota Super Custom driven by the 1st defendant and owned by the 2nd defendant. Kalangwa died as a result. The 1st to 4th plaintiffs, minor children of the deceased, sued through their next friend. The 5th and 6th plaintiffs were family members selected to obtain letters of administration. The plaintiffs alleged the 1st defendant was over-speeding and driving negligently. The defendants contended that the deceased deliberately threw himself in front of the vehicle in an apparent suicide attempt. An independent witness, DW3, testified that he saw the deceased jump in front of the moving vehicle. The traffic accident report noted skid marks but did not conclusively establish the cause of the accident.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiffs have the capacity to bring this suit.
  2. Whether the 1st defendant negligently drove motor vehicle Reg. No. UBA 424 D and caused the death of the late Kalangwa Everest.
  3. Whether the 2nd defendant is vicariously liable for the negligence of the 1st defendant.
  4. What are the remedies available to the parties?

Orders

  • The suit filed by the 5th and 6th plaintiffs is struck out for lack of locus standi.
  • The suit filed by the 1st to 4th plaintiffs through their next friend Kalema Gerald Kyakuwa is maintained but dismissed on the merits.
  • The suit is dismissed with costs to the defendants.

Rules and key headnotes

Locus Standi — Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act — Requirement for Letters of Administration
Under section 6 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act Cap 289, an action for wrongful death must be brought either by the executor or administrator of the deceased or by members of the deceased's family. Persons who have been selected by the family to apply for letters of administration but who have not yet obtained the grant at the time of filing suit lack locus standi to institute the action. Letters of administration cannot operate retrospectively to confer standing from the date of filing.
Locus Standi — Family Members Under Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act
Under section 1(b) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act Cap 289, a member of the family includes the father, mother, son, or daughter of the deceased, whether related legitimately, illegitimately, or by adoption. Minor children of the deceased have standing to bring an action for wrongful death through their next friend without requiring letters of administration.
Negligence — Burden of Proof — Standard of Proof in Civil Matters
In a civil action for negligence, the plaintiff bears the legal burden of proving the case on a balance of probabilities. To establish negligence, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant owed a duty of care, that the defendant breached that duty, and that the plaintiff suffered damage as a result of the breach.
Negligence — Road Traffic Accidents — Duty of Care Owed by Drivers
Section 100 of the Traffic and Road Safety Act Cap 347 criminalises causing death through reckless driving and casts a duty of care on drivers towards passengers and other road users including pedestrians to drive carefully so as not to cause accidents and deaths. A driver owes a duty of care to pedestrians using the road.
Expert Evidence — Traffic Accident Reports — Weight of Documentary Evidence
Where a traffic accident report is not exhaustive and does not conclusively establish the cause of an accident, and where the scene of crime officer or inspectorate of vehicles officers who prepared the report do not testify as expert witnesses to elaborate on their findings, the court may find the documentary evidence insufficient to prove negligence on the part of the defendant driver.
Negligence — Contributory Negligence — Voluntary Assumption of Risk
Where credible evidence establishes that a deceased pedestrian deliberately threw himself in front of a moving vehicle, the deceased's own negligence is the cause of his death. A driver who was driving within the speed limit and who attempted to manoeuvre to avoid the pedestrian is not liable for the death.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (8)

  • Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562
  • Sebuiiba v Co-operative Bank Ltd (1982) HCB 129
  • Nsubuga v Kavuma (1978) HCB 307
  • Ismail Serugo v KCCA and Another (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 1998)
  • Mutebi Ronald and Another v UMEME Uganda Limited (HCCS No. 0025 of 2024)
  • Dima Dominic Poro v Inyani and Another (CA No. 0017 of 2016)
  • Oniony Charles v Attorney General (HCCS No. 579 of 2016)
  • Serubiri Angelo v UMEME Limited (HCCS No. 469 of 2017)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ntale Joshua and 5 Others v Sseruyange Godfrey and Another (Land Civil Case No.0035 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 1558 (28 November 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.