Wakilii

Sentongo Birungi v Sekubwa and 3 Others (Civil Appeal 32 of 1999)

Court of Appeal · [2000] UGCA 39 · 2000 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from a High Court judgment awarding damages for negligence
Decision
Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment for the plaintiff and award of damages upheld

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 of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the maxim ex turpi causa non oritur actio did not defeat the plaintiff's negligence claim because he did not need to rely on the illegality (driving with a garage number plate) as part of his cause of action. The maxim applies only where the illegality is inherent in the cause of action. The court upheld the finding of vicarious liability, since the appellant owned the vehicle and the negligent third defendant was her servant driving in the course of employment. Entering joint and several judgment against the appellant and the third defendant, following interlocutory judgment against the latter, was proper. Costs to defendants dragged into the action were justified.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment for the plaintiff and award of damages upheld

Facts

Angela Amuge, the registered owner of Mazda minibus 407 UAF, together with her husband, gave the vehicle to Amir Nsereko to repair and sell to recover repair costs. The appellant, Teddy Sentongo Birungi, agreed to trade in her Datsun pick-up plus cash for 407 UAF. She paid Shs. 1,500,000 and took possession of 407 UAF, the log book to follow on payment of the balance. While being driven by the appellant's driver (the third defendant, Njawuzi Prosper), the minibus collided with the plaintiff Wilberforce Sekubwa's Mercedes Benz on 12 December 1994. The Benz was bearing a garage number plate, for which the plaintiff was convicted, and the third defendant was convicted of careless driving. The appellant later tried to repudiate the purchase and recover her money. The High Court found the third defendant negligent, held the appellant vicariously liable as owner and employer, and awarded the plaintiff Shs. 11,024,000 in damages.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff's claim in negligence was defeated by the maxim ex turpi causa non oritur actio because his vehicle was on the road illegally bearing a garage number plate.
  2. Whether the trial judge erred in entering judgment against the appellant and the third defendant jointly and severally.
  3. Whether the principle of vicarious liability was correctly applied to hold the appellant liable for the third defendant's negligence.
  4. Whether the trial judge correctly awarded costs to the first, second and fourth defendants against the appellant.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the first, second and fourth respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Negligence — Illegality Defence — Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
The maxim ex turpi causa non oritur actio defeats a claim only where the illegality is inherent in the cause of action; a plaintiff who can prove his negligence claim without relying on his own illegality as part of the cause of action may maintain the action.
Negligence — Standing to Sue — Possession versus Ownership
In a claim in negligence for damage to a vehicle, ownership of the subject matter is irrelevant; possession is what matters, and the person in charge of the vehicle at the time of the accident may maintain the action.
Vicarious Liability — Employer's Liability for Servant Driving in Course of Employment
An employer is vicariously liable for the negligence of a servant who was in charge of and driving the employer's vehicle in the course of employment when the accident occurred.
Judgments — Interlocutory Judgment and Joint and Several Liability
Where interlocutory judgment is entered against a non-appearing defendant under Order 9 rule 6, final judgment jointly and severally against that defendant and a co-defendant may properly be entered after assessment of damages, without subjecting the defaulting defendant to double jeopardy.
Appeals — Raising Points of Law for the First Time on Appeal
A question of law may be raised for the first time in an appellate court and may properly be included in the memorandum of appeal for determination.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (7)

  • Paul K. Ssemogerere and Another v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2000)
  • Scott v Brown, Doering, McNab & Co [1892] 2 QB 728
  • Mistry Amar Singh v Serwano Wofunira Kulubya (1963) EA 408
  • Ashmore, Benson, Pease & Co Ltd v AV Dawson Ltd [1973] 2 All ER 856
  • Belvoir Finance Co Ltd v Harold G. Cole & Co Ltd [1969] 2 All ER 904
  • Taylor v Chester (1869) LR 4 QB 309
  • Ashton v Turner and Another [1981] QB 137

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sentongo Birungi v Sekubwa and 3 Others (Civil Appeal 32 of 1999) [2000] UGCA 39 (24 May 2000)
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.