Wakilii

Selestino Mushongore v B.A.T. (1984) Limited (CIVIL suit no . 122 OF -1993)

High Court · [1994] UGHC 166 · 1994 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 fatal road traffic accident
Decision
Plaintiff awarded damages for loss of dependency to be apportioned among three dependants produced in court

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 High Court held that the defendant's driver was negligent in detoured and struck a pedestrian standing at a bus stage, and failed to explain how his position was consistent with reasonable care. The deceased did not contribute to the accident. The defendant was vicariously liable for its servant's negligence committed in the course of employment. Damages for loss of dependency were awarded only to the three dependants produced in court (widow and two sons), calculated on the deceased's net income from his hotel business and 20-year working life expectancy, totalling shs. 109,500,000 to be apportioned among them.

Outcome

Plaintiff awarded damages for loss of dependency to be apportioned among three dependants produced in court

Facts

On 11 July 1992 at Namataba trading centre, Francis Kasumba aged 35 was knocked down by motor vehicle UXN 505 driven by the defendant's employee Seruga Teddy. The deceased died the same day from injuries sustained. The deceased was standing at a bus stage with others waiting for transport when the vehicle approached from Kampala at high speed with full lights on. Other people jumped away but the vehicle detoured, struck the deceased within the stage curb, and drove him 9 metres before coming to rest. The deceased operated a hotel and restaurant business at Namataba, earning approximately shs. 20,000 daily, and supported eight dependants including widow Stefaniya Mbabazi and seven children aged 5 to 18 years. The defendant denied the accident occurred and denied negligence.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant's motor vehicle UXN 505 knocked Francis Kasumba on 11 July 1992.
  2. Whether the defendant's driver was negligent in the manner in which he drove the motor vehicle.
  3. Whether the defendant is vicariously liable for the driver's negligence.
  4. What is the quantum of damages?

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the plaintiff with costs.
  • Damages of shs. 109,500,000 to be apportioned between the widow Stefaniya Mbabazi, son Selestino Mushongore, and son James Mugisha.
  • No award made for dependants not produced in court.

Rules and key headnotes

Negligence — Motor Vehicle Accidents — Burden of Proof — Duty of Care
Where a motor vehicle on its proper side of the road detours and collides with a pedestrian standing within a bus stage, the driver must explain how his position is consistent with the exercise of reasonable care; failure to offer such explanation establishes negligence.
Contributory Negligence — Pedestrian Standing at Bus Stage
A pedestrian waiting for transport at a bus stage does not act unreasonably by standing approximately 2 metres from the edge of the road within the stage area, and does not contribute to an accident caused by a motor vehicle that has no business being at that location.
Vicarious Liability — Employer Liability for Servant's Negligence — Presumption
Where it is pleaded that a motor vehicle was driven by the defendant's servant, a presumption arises that the defendant is responsible for any negligence on the part of the servant; the defendant must plead and prove that the servant was not driving in the course of employment to absolve itself from liability.
Fatal Accidents — Assessment of Dependency — Multiplier and Multiplicand Method
In assessing damages for loss of dependency under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, the court determines the deceased's age at death, calculates working life expectancy to age 55 (the multiplier), determines net yearly earnings (the multiplicand), and apportions the product among dependants according to their ages, with younger dependants receiving higher amounts due to longer dependency.
Fatal Accidents Claims — Proof of Dependants — Production in Court
Section 10 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act Cap 74 requires the plaintiff to deliver full particulars of dependants; additionally, dependants must be produced in court to guard against fictitious claims and to enable the court to assess their ages, which determine the apportionment of damages; no award shall be made for dependants not produced.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (9)

  • Richley v Raul [1965] 1 WLR 1454
  • Monde v USSA [1969] EA 155
  • Jones v Livox Quarries Ltd [1952] 2 QB 608
  • E Kangavo v Attorney General (1972) 2 ULR 150
  • Amina Nalugya v UTC and Another (1978) HCB 301
  • Mary Nasubuga v Amuli Sultant and Another (1978) HCB 314
  • Edrisa Kakooza v J Kyamataku and Another (1979) HCB 225
  • Grace Kataratambi v Akaya Magala and 2 Others (1989) HCB 237
  • Lusiya v KCC [1972] EA 240

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Selestino Mushongore v B.A.T. (1984) Limited (CIVIL suit no . _122 OF -1993) [1994] UGHC 166 (17 October 1994)
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.