Wakilii

Semambo v Tumukunde (Civil Appeal 38 of 2018)

High Court · [2024] UGHCCD 117 · 2024 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from judgment of Nakawa Chief Magistrate's Court awarding damages for destruction of poultry structures
Decision
Appeal dismissed; lower court judgment and decree upheld and to be enforced

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 a first appellate court may only interfere with an award of general damages where the trial court acted on a wrong principle of law or where the amount is so high or low as to be an entirely erroneous estimate. Where a respondent established property damage from forcible removal of structures under an oral hire agreement, but failed to prove special damages due to an unreliable valuation report, the trial court properly awarded general damages based on the uncontested evidence of loss. The High Court found no error in the trial magistrate's evaluation of evidence, rejection of the unreliable valuation, or assessment of UGX 10,000,000 as general damages. Appeal dismissed.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; lower court judgment and decree upheld and to be enforced

Facts

In May 2009, the respondent entered into an oral agreement to rent the appellant's land at Mbuya Zone for a poultry farming project for two years. The respondent erected temporary structures and started rearing chickens. After some time, the appellant directed the respondent to remove the chickens, which the respondent refused. In December 2009, the appellant destroyed the structures and other property the respondent had placed on the land. The respondent sued for damages. The trial magistrate awarded UGX 10,000,000 as general damages and costs. The appellant appealed, challenging the evaluation of evidence, the rejection of a valuation report, and the quantum of general damages. The respondent's valuation report was found unreliable by the trial court.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial Chief Magistrate properly evaluated the evidence on record.
  2. Whether the trial Chief Magistrate erred in rejecting the valuation report.
  3. Whether the award of UGX 10,000,000 as general damages was appropriate and based on correct legal principles.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Judgment and decree of the lower court upheld.
  • Costs of the appeal and of the proceedings in the lower court to be paid by the Appellant.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Amendment of Memorandum of Appeal — Order 43 rule 2 CPR
Order 43 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules does not bar a party from amending a memorandum of appeal, nor does it prescribe a period within which amendment may occur. Where an appellant amends a memorandum of appeal before the appeal comes up for hearing and effects service on the respondent in time, allowing the respondent to be aware of the amended grounds and to contest them, such amendment is neither in contravention of Order 43 rule 2 nor does it occasion prejudice.
Civil Procedure — Duty of First Appellate Court — Re-evaluation of Evidence
The duty of a first appellate court is to scrutinise and re-evaluate the evidence on record and come to its own conclusion upon the evidence adduced in the lower court, making allowance for the fact that it has neither seen nor heard the witnesses. The appellate court must consider the evidence on any issue in its totality and not any piece in isolation.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Nature and Assessment
General damages are the direct natural or probable consequence of the injury complained of and are awarded at the discretion of the court. The purpose of general damages is to restore the aggrieved person to the position they would have been in had the breach or wrong not occurred. General damages are implied in every breach of contract and every infringement of a given right. In assessing general damages, the court should be guided by the value of the subject matter, the economic inconvenience the plaintiff may have been put through, and the nature and extent of the injury suffered.
Damages & Quantum — Interference by Appellate Court — Standard of Review
An appellate court will not interfere with an award and assessment of damages by a trial court unless it is shown that the trial court acted on some wrong principle of law, or where the amount awarded is so high or so low as to make the award an entirely erroneous estimate of the damages to which the plaintiff is entitled.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (11)

  • Zeresire Tereza v Danda Rwakasenyi & Anor (High Court Civil Appeal No. 50 of 2017)
  • Fredrick Zaabwe v Orient Bank Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006)
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Baguma Fred v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 2004)
  • Kakira Sugar Works Ltd v Patrick Masembo & Anor (High Court Civil Suit No. 120 of 2004)
  • Robert Coussens v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1999)
  • Hadley v Baxendale (1894) 9 Exch 341
  • Kibimba Rice Ltd v Umar Salim (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1992)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
  • Impressa Federici v Irene Nabwire (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2000)
  • Administrator General v Bwanika James & Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2003)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Semambo v Tumukunde (Civil Appeal 38 of 2018) [2024] UGHCCD 117 (17 July 2024)
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.