Wakilii

Ongom v Kahero (Civil Suit 231 of 1993)

High Court · [1995] UGHCCD 10 · 1995 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 motor vehicle accident
Decision
Judgment for the plaintiff with damages and costs awarded

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

Held that the defendant's driver was wholly negligent in attempting to overtake at an unsafe place at excessive speed and failing to have due regard for other road users. The defendant is vicariously liable for the negligence of his servant driving in the course of employment. The plaintiff is awarded special damages of UGX 1,425,000 for medical expenses and lost earnings, and general damages of UGX 5,000,000 for personal injuries. The claim for UGX 30,000,000 for loss of motor vehicle fails for want of proof of the pre-accident value of the vehicle.

Outcome

Judgment for the plaintiff with damages and costs awarded

Facts

On 17 August 1992, the plaintiff, a member of the National Resistance Council, was driving his Volkswagen Passat (UPE 377) from Gulu to Kampala with three passengers. Near Bombo town, after slowing at a roadblock, he encountered a Toyota Hiace (UPJ 120) coming from the opposite direction. The defendant's vehicle (UXV 088) attempted to overtake UPJ 120 at high speed on a sharp corner with a big fall on the right side and a wall on the left. The plaintiff hooted and braked to avoid a head-on collision. The defendant's driver veered right to pass between the two vehicles but collided with the plaintiff's vehicle, causing the plaintiff to suffer a comminuted fracture of the distal tibia communicating with the ankle joint, a medial malleolus fracture, and multiple wounds. The plaintiff was admitted to Nsambya Hospital for five months, underwent surgery with screws inserted, and continued physiotherapy. He was assessed with 60% permanent disability. The defendant admitted ownership of the vehicle and that the driver was his servant but contested liability, claiming he was not the registered owner and alleging contributory negligence. The defendant withdrew instructions from counsel and the trial proceeded ex parte.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant's driver was negligent in the manner in which he drove the defendant's vehicle.
  2. Whether the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.
  3. Whether the defendant is vicariously liable for the negligence of the driver.
  4. What damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to.

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the plaintiff.
  • Defendant to pay the plaintiff UGX 1,425,000 as special damages.
  • Defendant to pay the plaintiff UGX 5,000,000 as general damages.
  • Interest awarded at court rate on special damages from date of filing the suit until payment in full.
  • Interest awarded at court rate on general damages from date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Defendant to pay the taxed costs of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Negligence — Duty of Care — Highway Users
Any particular user of the highway owes a duty to any other particular user not to do or omit anything which he might reasonably anticipate might injure the other, or at least where such person might reasonably be expected to be injured by a failure to take care.
Negligence — Overtaking — Unsafe Place
A driver who attempts to overtake a leading vehicle at a place where it is not safe to do so, at excessive speed, and without due regard to other road users, is wholly negligent.
Contributory Negligence — Burden of Proof
The onus is on the defendant to prove that the plaintiff's contributory negligence was a substantial or material co-operating cause of the accident.
Vicarious Liability — Master and Servant
A defendant is vicariously liable for the negligence of a driver who was his servant and who was driving the defendant's vehicle in the course of employment, provided the relationship of master and servant is established.
Special Damages — Proof
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and proved. Where a claim for transport expenses is made but no evidence is given of the amount spent, the claim fails for want of proof.
Damages for Destroyed Goods — Market Value — Pre-Accident Value
In cases of destruction of goods, the normal measure of damages is the market value of the goods destroyed at the time and place of destruction. A plaintiff claiming damages for a destroyed vehicle must prove the pre-accident value of the vehicle; in the absence of such proof, the claim fails.
Replacement Cost — Used Goods — No Profit from Damage
A person is not entitled to make a profit out of damage caused to him by another. A plaintiff whose used vehicle was damaged is entitled only to an award that would enable him to get another car comparable to the damaged car in make and age, not the cost of a new car.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Traffic Ordinance s.6(1)
  • Sale of Goods Ordinance s.26(2)

Cases cited (17)

  • Departed Asians Custodian Board v Issa Bukenya (Civil Appeal No. 26 of 1992)
  • Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) AC 562
  • Matayo Musoke v Alibhai Garage Ltd (1960) EA
  • Helby v Mathews and others (1895) AC 471
  • Bourhill v Young (1943) AC 92
  • Challenor v William & Groney (1975) 1 Lloyd's R
  • Barigare v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 28 of 1992)
  • Interfreight Forwarders (U) Ltd v East Africa Development Bank (Civil Appeal No. 23 of 1992)
  • Moore v D.E.R. Ltd. (1971) 1 WLR 1476
  • Express Transport Co Ltd v BAT Tanzania Ltd (1968) EA 445
  • Darbishire v Warren (1963) 1 WLR 1067
  • Kibimba Rice Company Ltd v UMAR Salim (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1988)
  • Shamji v Bhatt (1965) EA 789
  • Matiya Byabalema and 2 others v Uganda Transport Co (1975) Ltd
  • Kyambabadde v Uganda Electricity Board, H.C.C. No. 1 of 1990
  • Godfrey Kateregga v U.E.B. H.C.C. No. 95(B) of 1989
  • Kiggundu v UTO (1975) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1995)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ongom v Kahero (Civil Suit 231 of 1993) [1995] UGHCCD 10 (18 October 1995)
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.