Robert Coussens v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 19 of 1999)

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.

Holding

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's challenge to the High Court's award of UGX 50,000,000 in general damages for personal injuries. It held that where loss of earning is pleaded as general damage rather than special damage, its quantification is a matter for the trial judge's discretion; a plaintiff cannot dictate a fixed figure. The trial judge had applied the correct principle by considering the appellant's condition, his diminished professional capacity, and comparable local awards. An appellate court may interfere only where a wrong principle was applied or the award is manifestly low or high. The award was not manifestly low; if anything it was on the higher side. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed with costs; High Court award of UGX 50,000,000 general damages upheld

Facts

The appellant, an American national and professional deep sea diver aged 25, was visiting Uganda when he was negligently shot by members of the Uganda Police Force who mistook him for a car thief. He sustained severe injuries, and medical evidence established he could no longer perform deep sea diving. He sued the Attorney General claiming special and general damages for personal injuries. He asserted he had earned US$72,000 per year as a diver and could now earn only US$22,000 per year, claiming US$1,025,000 as loss of earning over an expected twenty-year career. The trial judge gave judgment for the appellant but declined to award loss of earning as claimed, reasoning that the appellant had not proved he was earning any money at the time of the injury. After considering comparable local cases, the trial judge treated the case as unique and awarded general damages of UGX 50,000,000. The appellant appealed, contending the trial judge applied wrong principles and made a manifestly low award.

Issues

1. Whether the trial judge erred in declining to award loss of earning as claimed because the appellant was not working at the time of the injury.
2. Whether the trial judge applied the correct principle in assessing general damages for personal injuries.
3. Whether the general damages awarded were manifestly low such that the appellate court should interfere and enhance the award.

Orders

• Appeal dismissed.
• Costs of the appeal awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Cases cited (4)

• Admiralty Commissioners v Owners of Steamship Susquehanna [1926] AC 655
• West & Son Ltd v Shephard [1964] AC 326
• Wise v Kaye [1962] 1 QB 638
• Mbogo v Shah [1968] EA 93

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.

• Multiple ICD(U) Limited v Jaco Commercial Agencies Limited (Civil Appeal No.125 of 2020)

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