Wakilii

Nyanjura & Another v Gitta & 2 Others (Civil Suit No. 26 of 2017)

High Court · [2020] UGHC 86 · 2020 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 assault and battery
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiffs with general damages awarded after deduction of criminal compensation already paid

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 a civil claim for damages may proceed even where compensation has been ordered in criminal proceedings. The defendants' assault and battery gave rise to both criminal and tortious liability. The plaintiffs were entitled to adequate compensation beyond the nominal amounts awarded in the criminal trial. General damages of UGX 10,000,000 and UGX 2,000,000 were awarded to the first and second plaintiffs respectively, less the criminal compensation amounts already paid. Exemplary damages were refused as there were no aggravating factors beyond the assault itself.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiffs with general damages awarded after deduction of criminal compensation already paid

Facts

On 4 October 2016, the first plaintiff Nyanjura Marion and the second plaintiff Bomera Joseph were attacked by the three defendants at Nyamiti Village. The first defendant used an iron bar to hit the first plaintiff's hand and crushed her right finger. The second defendant used a panga to cut her left leg, causing severe tissue and bone damage. The third defendant hit her on different parts of her body with an iron bar and also assaulted the second plaintiff. The attack arose from a land dispute between the families. The first plaintiff sustained grievous injuries resulting in permanent disability requiring use of a crutch to walk. The second plaintiff sustained actual bodily harm. The defendants were criminally prosecuted for assault causing grievous harm and assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to sections 219 and 236 of the Penal Code Act. They were convicted and ordered to pay fines and compensation of UGX 1,050,000 to the first plaintiff and UGX 150,000 to the second plaintiff, which they paid. The plaintiffs subsequently filed this civil suit claiming general damages of UGX 500,000,000 and exemplary damages of UGX 50,000,000.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendants caused personal injuries to the plaintiffs.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The first plaintiff is awarded general damages of UGX 8,950,000.
  • The second plaintiff is awarded general damages of UGX 1,850,000.
  • The general damages shall attract interest of 8% per annum from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • The plaintiffs are awarded costs of the suit.
  • The defendants will satisfy the judgment severally and jointly.

Rules and key headnotes

Tort Law — Assault and Battery — Dual Criminal and Civil Liability
One event can give rise to both criminal and tortious liability. Assault and battery are intentional torts that can serve as the basis for a civil suit demanding compensation in the form of monetary damages, and at the same time are crimes under the Penal Code Act that can result in prosecution by the state.
Damages & Quantum — Civil Claim for Damages After Criminal Compensation
A plaintiff may file a civil suit to recover adequate compensation for assault and battery even where an order for compensation has been entered by a criminal court. The fact that there was an order for compensation by a criminal court does not preclude a plaintiff from seeking additional compensation in a civil court where the criminal compensation is inadequate.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Assessment Principles
Damages are at large and the court, considering all relevant circumstances, will reach an intuitive assessment of the loss which it considers the plaintiff has sustained. The award of general damages is in the discretion of court in respect of what the law presumes to be the natural and probable consequence of the defendant's act or omission. In assessing general damages, the court should be mainly guided by the nature and extent of the injury suffered.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Deduction of Criminal Compensation
Where defendants have been ordered to pay compensation in criminal proceedings and have complied with that order, the compensation paid in the criminal matter should be deducted from the general damages awarded in the subsequent civil suit to avoid double recovery for the same injury.
Damages & Quantum — Exemplary Damages — Circumstances for Award
Exemplary damages represent a sum of money of a penal nature in addition to compensatory damages and are deterrent in nature. They should only be awarded in cases where the wrong complained of was an oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional action by a servant of the government, or where the defendant's conduct has been calculated by him to make a profit for himself which may well exceed the compensation made to the defendant. There must be aggravating factors beyond the mere wrongful act itself.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (19)

  • Lancaster v Blackwell Colliery Co Ltd (1918 WC Rep 345)
  • Sebuliba v Cooperative Bank Ltd [1982] HCB 130
  • Odiya Richard vs. Okello John Bosco and three others
  • Omonyi Rogers v Attorney General and Another (Civil Suit No. 27 of 2002)
  • Wekesa John Patrick v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 130 of 2008)
  • James Fredrick Nsubuga v Attorney General (HCCS No. 13 of 1993)
  • Erukana Kuwe v Isaac Patrick Matovu and Another (HCCS No. 177 of 2003)
  • Alaka and Company Advocates v Metropolitan Properties Ltd (HCCS No. 621 of 2007)
  • Power and City Contractors Ltd v LTL Projects (PVT) Ltd (HCCS No. 24 of 2012)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
  • Hadley v Baxendale (1894) 9 Exch 341
  • Charles Acire v M Engola (HCCS No. 143 of 1993)
  • Kibimba Rice Ltd v Umar Salim (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1992)
  • Storms v Hutchinson [1905] AC 515
  • Kabona Brothers Agencies v Uganda Metal Products & Enamelling Co Ltd [1981-1982] HCB 74
  • Kiwanuka Godfrey T/a Tasumi Auto Spares and Class mart v Arua District Local Government (HCCS No. 186 of 2006)
  • African Highland Produce Ltd v Kisorio [2001] 1 EA 1
  • Nansubuga Josephine v Vision For Africa (HCCS No. 969 of 2005)
  • Kanji Naran Patel v Noor Essa and Another [1965] 1 EA 484

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nyanjura & Another v Gitta & 2 Others (Civil Suit No. 26 of 2017) [2020] UGHC 86 (17 July 2020)
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.