Software Distributors (Africa) Ltd And Another v Kambaho (Civil Appeal No. 70 of 2006)

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 an appeal against a High Court award of UGX 18 million in general damages to a minor who sustained extensive injuries, including facial scars and broken teeth, in a road accident in which liability had been admitted. The Court reaffirmed that an appellate court will not interfere with a trial judge's exercise of discretion in assessing damages unless it is shown that the judge applied a wrong principle, took account of an irrelevant factor, ignored a relevant one, or that the award is so inordinately high or low that an error of principle is evident. The appellants failed to satisfy that burden, so the award stood and costs were awarded to the respondent.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; High Court award of UGX 18 million general damages upheld

Facts

On 31 August 2004 the respondent, then aged 14 years, was knocked down by the appellants' motor vehicle while trying to cross the road at Acacia Avenue. The vehicle was being driven by the first appellant's servant in the course of his employment. The respondent sustained extensive bodily injuries and was hospitalised for one month. He was medically examined by a senior consultant orthopaedic surgeon at Mulago Referral Hospital, who assessed temporary disability at 60% and permanent disability at 20%, and noted facial scars and broken teeth. At trial liability for the accident was admitted; the gravity of the injuries and the quantum of damages were disputed. The trial judge awarded UGX 18 million as general damages plus special damages and costs. The appellants challenged only the general damages award as inordinately high.

Issues

1. Whether the award of UGX 18 million as general damages was justifiable in the circumstances.
2. Whether the appellate court should interfere with the trial judge's exercise of discretion in assessing general damages.

Orders

• Appeal dismissed for lack of merit.
• The respondent to have the costs of the appeal and those of the High Court.

Rules and key headnotes

Cases cited (4)

• Gucheki v TM-AN Construction Group (Africa) [2003] 1 EA 83
• Nguru & another v Rikar [1995-1998] EA 246
• Coussens v Attorney General [1999] 1 EA 40
• 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.

• Kampala Capital City Authority v Zzimwe Enterprises, Hardware and Construction Ltd (HCT-00-CC-MA 100 of 2013)

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