Robert Cuosssens v Attorney General [2000] UGSC 2

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 Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. Pre-trial loss of earnings may be pleaded and proved as special damages, while post-trial (future) loss is claimed as general damages assessed in the court's discretion; but in both cases the claimant must prove a foundation of solid facts, above all his actual earnings at the time of injury. The appellant, a deep-sea diver who was not working and earned nothing in the months before being shot, did not prove the USD 72,000 annual income claimed. The trial court therefore properly declined the loss-of-earnings claim and awarded UGX 50,000,000 general damages by reference to comparable cases. The appellate court would not disturb a discretionary award absent a wrong principle or a wholly erroneous estimate.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; the High Court award of UGX 50,000,000 general damages, as confirmed by the Court of Appeal, stands.

Facts

The appellant, a 25-year-old American national and professional deep-sea diver, was in Uganda visiting his family when he was negligently shot and severely injured by members of the Uganda Police Force who allegedly mistook him for a car thief. Medical evidence established that the injuries permanently rendered him unfit to work as a diver. He sued the Attorney General for special and general damages, claiming he had been earning USD 72,000 per year and would have continued for 20 years, and prayed for USD 1,025,000 for loss of income (the difference between USD 72,000 and an alternative income of USD 22,000 over 20 years). His evidence was that he earned about USD 960 per week from Maryland Diving Services, with weekly wages varying between USD 948 and USD 1,106. In cross-examination he admitted he had not worked or earned anything during the six to seven months he had spent in Uganda before the shooting, and had declined an offer of work at Mombasa. The USD 72,000 figure reflected what a diver of his qualifications could earn in places such as the North Sea, Singapore or Mombasa, not his proven actual earnings.

Issues

1. Whether loss of future income, being an aspect of general damages, must be strictly proved in the manner of special damages.
2. Whether the appellant proved the income he was actually earning at the time of his injury so as to ground an award for loss of earnings.
3. Whether the Court of Appeal, as the first appellate court, failed in its duty to re-evaluate and assess the evidence.
4. Whether the appellate court was entitled to interfere with the trial court's discretionary award of general damages.

Orders

• Appeal dismissed.
• Each party to bear its own costs of the appeal to the Supreme Court.
• Costs in the Court of Appeal to the respondent as ordered by that court.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (2)

• Rules of the Supreme Court r.43(2)
• Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Cap. 74)

Cases cited (23)

• British Transport Commission v Gourley [1956] AC 185
• Livingstone v Rawyards Coal Co (1880) 5 App Cas 259
• Daly v General Steam Navigation Co Ltd [1980] 3 All ER 696
• Bullingha vs Hughs [1949] 1 KB 643
• Phillips v London and South Western Railway Co (1879-80) 5 QBD 78
• Davies v Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd [1942] AC 601
• Browning v War Office [1963] 1 QB 750
• Payne v Railway Executive [1951] 2 All ER 901
• Cookson v Knowles [1979] AC 556
• Graham v Dodds [1983] 2 All ER 953
• Fletcher v Autocar and Transporters Ltd [1968] 2 QB 322
• Pope v D Murphy & Son Ltd [1961] 1 QB 222
• Parry v Cleaver [1970] AC 1
• Pickett v British Rail Engineering Ltd [1980] AC 136
• Lim Poh Choo v Camden and Islington Area Health Authority [1980] AC 174
• Mitchell v Mulholland (No 2) [1972] 1 QB 65
• Owen v Sykes [1936] 1 KB 192
• Flint v Lovell [1935] 1 KB 354
• Maljibhai vs The Patidar Samaj & Anor (1944) EHCA 1
• Mitford vs Bowker (1947) 14 EHCA 20
• Watson v Powles [1968] 1 QB 596
• Obongo v Municipal Council of Kisumu [1971] EA 91
• Mbogo v Shah [1968] EA 93

Cases citing this judgment (11)

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.

• Biyinzika Farmers Ltd and Another v Biyinzika Enterprises Limited and Others (Civil Appeal No. 32 of 2021)
• Elsa Bokhre Abraha v Opec Prime Properties (U) Ltd and Another (Civil Suit 106 of 2020)
• Multiple ICD(U) Limited v Jaco Commercial Agencies Limited (Civil Appeal No.125 of 2020)
• Namutumba District Local Government and Another v Dhikusooka John (Civil Appeal No. 59 of 2018)
• Attorney General of Uganda v Kwesiga Precious (Civil Appeal No.277 of 2018)
• Hass Petroleum (U) Limited v Kena International Limited and Another (Civil Suit No. 275 of 2021)
• Karegyeja Geoffrey T A Kloaf Bakery v Crane Management Services Ltd and Others (Civil Suit No. 966 of 2020)
• Nakalanzi Rashidah and Others v Finicon Group (U) Limited (Civil Suit No. 79 of 2020)
• Lutaaya and Others v DFCU Bank Uganda Limited and Others (Civil Suit 616 of 2020)
• Makanga and Another v Kinaalwa Kazibwe (Civil Appeal 67 of 2023)
• Commissioner of Customs v Prompt Packers and Forwarders Limited (Civil Appeal No. 93 of 2015)

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