Omujul v Kalabuki and Others (Civil Suit 17 of 2019)
Observed later treatment
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 held that the 1st defendant was negligent in causing a motor vehicle accident that resulted in the amputation of the plaintiff's right leg. The 2nd defendant was found vicariously liable as the employer of the 1st defendant. The 5th and 6th defendants were held liable for issuing a forged insurance sticker. The 3rd and 4th defendants (insurance companies) were exonerated as the sticker was forged and not issued by their authorised agents. The plaintiff was awarded UGX 90,000,000 in general damages and special damages for medical expenses and property loss.
Outcome
Plaintiff awarded general and special damages against the 1st, 2nd, 5th and 6th defendants; 3rd and 4th defendants exonerated
Facts
On 8 March 2017, the plaintiff was riding a motorcycle from his home in Bukedea when a speeding Toyota Hiace vehicle registration number UAL 810R, driven by the 1st defendant and owned by the 2nd defendant, knocked him from behind. The accident resulted in severe injuries requiring amputation of the plaintiff's right leg and a fracture to his right hand. The vehicle bore an insurance sticker purportedly issued by the 3rd defendant (Excel Insurance Co. Ltd), but investigations revealed the sticker was forged. The 5th defendant, an insurance agent, had obtained the forged sticker from the 6th defendant. The plaintiff sought compensation from all defendants. The 1st defendant claimed the plaintiff suddenly turned right at a junction, but witnesses testified the plaintiff was riding straight when overtaken and struck by the speeding vehicle.
Issues
- Whether the 1st defendant acted negligently in causing the accident?
- Whether the 2nd defendant is vicariously liable for the acts of the 1st defendant?
- Whether the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th defendants are liable to compensate the plaintiff?
- What remedies are available to the parties?
Orders
- The plaintiff proved his case against the 1st, 2nd, 5th and 6th defendants.
- No case was proved against the 3rd and 4th defendants.
- The 1st, 2nd, 5th and 6th defendants are liable to compensate the plaintiff.
- General damages of UGX 90,000,000 awarded to the plaintiff, to be paid by the 1st, 2nd, 5th and 6th defendants in equal amounts.
- Interest of 18% per annum on general damages from the date of judgment until payment in full.
- Special damages as quantified by the registrar awarded to the plaintiff, to be paid by the 2nd defendant.
- The 2nd defendant shall pay the costs of the suit.
- Interest of 18% per annum on special damages.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (11)
- Civil Procedure Act s.27(2)
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 9 rule 20(1)(a)
- Evidence Act s.101
- Evidence Act s.102
- Traffic and Road Safety (Rules of the Road) Regulations 2004 Regulation 8(1)
- Traffic and Road Safety (Rules of the Road) Regulations 2004 Regulation 8(6)
- Motor Vehicle Insurance (Third Party Risks) Act 1989 s.2(1)
- Motor Vehicle Insurance (Third Party Risks) Act 1989 s.3
- Motor Vehicle Insurance (Third Party Risks) Act 1989 s.7
- Motor Vehicle Insurance (Third Party Risks) Act 1989 s.12
- Insurance Act 2017 s.2
Cases cited (21)
- Blyth v Birmingham Water Works (1856) 11 Ex 78
- Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562
- Mukasa v Singh & Ors [1969] EA 422
- Ojara Thomas v Mewe Bus Services Limited (HCCS No. 020 of 2016)
- Paulo Kato v Uganda Transport Corporation (1975) HCB
- Baali Jackson v Mansons Ltd (Civil Suit No. 37 of 2012)
- Embu Public Road Services Ltd v Riimi [1968] EA 22
- Wagon Mound No. 1 [1961] AC 388
- Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] 1 All ER 705
- Gaaga Enterprises Ltd v SBI International Holdings and 2 Others (HCCS No. 19 of 2005)
- Nsubuga v Kavuma [1978] HCB 307
- Sekitoleko Joram v Kato Edward & Another (HCCS No. 97 of 2017)
- Paul Byekwaso v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2002)
- Moses Kizige v Muzakawo Batolewo [1981] HCB 66
- Assist (U) Ltd v Italian Asphalt & Haulage & Another (HCCS No. 1291 of 1999)
- Uganda Commercial Bank v Deo Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 293
- Musoke v Departed Asians Custodian Board [1990-1994] EA 219
- Uganda Telecom v Tanzanite Corporation [2005] EA 351
- Mutekanga v Equator Growers (U) Ltd [1995-1998] 2 EA 219
- Uganda Breweries Ltd v Uganda Railways Corporation (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2001)
- Butterworth v Butterworth
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
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.