Wakilii

Patel and Another v Brigadier-General Lewin (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 194.3)

East African Court of Appeal · [1943] EACA 6 · 1943 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from decision of H.M. Supreme Court of Kenya
Decision
Appeal dismissed; judgment of trial court affirmed holding appellants liable in negligence

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 where a lorry crossed onto its wrong side of the road in breach of the statutory duty under Traffic Ordinance s.42(a) to keep left when passing oncoming traffic, and collided with a car properly positioned on its correct side, the principle of res ipsa loquitur applied. In the absence of any explanation from the lorry driver, a prima facie case of negligence was established. The lorry owner was held liable for damages.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; judgment of trial court affirmed holding appellants liable in negligence

Facts

Respondent's car, driven by his step-daughter, was travelling from Nakuru towards Njoro on a straight road 19 feet wide. The car was properly positioned on its correct side of the road. Appellants' lorry approached from the opposite direction. The lorry suddenly crossed right across onto its wrong side of the road directly in front of the car and collided with it. The road was straight with ample room for both vehicles to pass safely. The lorry was 5 feet 6 inches wide and the car 5 feet 3 inches wide. There was no other traffic on the road. The driver of the lorry did not give evidence and offered no explanation for how the lorry came to be on its wrong side of the road at the time of collision.

Issues

  1. Whether the mere fact that a lorry collided with an oncoming vehicle on the lorry's wrong side of the road, without explanation from the driver, establishes a prima facie case of negligence.
  2. Whether the principle of res ipsa loquitur applies where a vehicle crosses onto its wrong side of the road and collides with an oncoming vehicle in breach of statutory duty to keep left.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Negligence — Res Ipsa Loquitur — Application to Road Traffic Collisions
The principle of res ipsa loquitur applies where a vehicle crosses onto its wrong side of the road in breach of statutory duty and collides with an oncoming vehicle properly positioned on its correct side, and the driver offers no reasonable explanation for the collision.
Negligence — Traffic Collisions — Statutory Duty to Keep Left
Under Traffic Ordinance s.42(a), every vehicle passing traffic from the opposite direction must be driven on the left or near side of the road. A vehicle has no right to be on its wrong side of the road when passing oncoming traffic, and whilst a vehicle with a clear road may travel on any part of that road, this entitlement ceases as soon as another vehicle is seen approaching from the opposite direction.
Res Ipsa Loquitur — Prima Facie Case of Negligence
Where the direct cause of an accident and the surrounding circumstances essential to its occurrence were within the sole control and management of the defendant or their servants, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if proper care is used, it affords reasonable evidence of negligence in the absence of explanation by the defendant.
Negligence — Burden of Proof — Failure to Call Driver as Witness
Where a driver fails to give evidence or offer any explanation for how their vehicle came to be on the wrong side of the road at the time of collision, the court is entitled to hold that negligence has been proved against them, absent evidence of unavoidable circumstances such as tyre burst or sudden emergency requiring evasive action.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Traffic Ordinance 1928 s.42(a)

Cases cited (5)

  • Scott v London and St Katherine Docks Co (1865) 159 ER 665
  • Wing v London General Omnibus Co [1909] 2 KB 663
  • Ellor v Selfridge & Co (1930) 46 TLR 236
  • Halliwell v Venables (1930) 99 LJKB 353
  • McGowan v Stott (1923) 99 LJKB 357

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Patel and Another v Brigadier-General Lewin (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 194.3) [1943] EACA 6 (1 January 1943)
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.