Wakilii

Ssekimwanyi v Ssebuliba & Another (Civil Suit 313 of 2021)

High Court · [2024] UGCOMMC 176 · 2024 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for negligence following acquittal in criminal proceedings
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff with defendants held jointly and severally liable for negligence

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 held that defendants who were entrusted with custody of a motor vehicle owed the plaintiff a duty of care as custodians. By parking the vehicle unattended at a bar without parking services, the defendants breached their duty of care and were liable in negligence for the loss of the vehicle. Special damages of UGX 72,000,000 for the cost of the vehicle and general damages of UGX 30,000,000 were awarded, with 6% interest per annum on general damages from judgment until payment in full.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff with defendants held jointly and severally liable for negligence

Facts

On 19 November 2016, the plaintiff purchased a motor vehicle (UAZ 427Q) for UGX 72,000,000 from MINHAS Motors (U) Ltd. The plaintiff entrusted the vehicle to the first defendant, who brought the second defendant as turn man. The arrangement was that the first defendant would drive the vehicle and pay the plaintiff UGX 800,000 weekly, which he did without default. On 28 March 2019, the plaintiff learned from third parties that the defendants had lost the motor vehicle at Kawempe Ttula near Vegas bar. The first defendant claimed the vehicle was stolen after they parked it alongside the road. Investigation revealed the location did not provide parking services. The plaintiff reported the matter to police and the defendants were charged with theft at Matugga Magistrate's Court, where they were acquitted. The trial magistrate advised the plaintiff to pursue a civil action for breach of contract and damages. Defendants did not file a defence after being served, and interlocutory judgment was entered on 7 June 2022.

Issues

  1. Whether the loss of the Plaintiff's motor vehicle was caused by the Defendants' negligence?
  2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the remedies sought?

Orders

  • The 1st and 2nd Defendants are jointly and severally liable for negligence.
  • Cost of the motor vehicle amounting to UGX 72,000,000 shall be paid by the 1st and 2nd Defendants to the Plaintiff.
  • General damages of UGX 30,000,000 shall be paid by the 1st and 2nd Defendants to the Plaintiff.
  • Interest on general damages at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of Judgment until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit are awarded to the Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Default Judgment — Formal Proof — Burden on Plaintiff
Where the court sets down a suit for formal proof after a default order has been made, the plaintiff is under a duty to place before the court evidence to sustain the averments in the plaint.
Tort Law — Negligence — Elements of Liability — Duty, Breach, Damage
To establish liability in negligence, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care, the defendant breached that duty, and the plaintiff suffered injury or damage as a result of the breach.
Tort Law — Negligence — Duty of Care — Custodians of Property
A person to whom custody of property is entrusted owes a duty of care to the owner to ensure the safety of the property while in their custody.
Tort Law — Negligence — Standard of Care — Foreseeability and Reasonable Care
A breach of duty occurs when the party owing the duty falls below the standard of behaviour required. To determine whether an act is negligent, it is relevant to consider whether any reasonable person would foresee that the act would cause damage. A prudent man will guard against the possible negligence of others when experience shows such negligence to be common.
Damages & Quantum — Special Damages — Pleading and Proof
The guiding principle is that special damages must be specially pleaded and strictly proved. The evidence can be documentary or otherwise, provided evidence is led to prove the special damages so sought.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Measure of Award — Compensatory Nature
The general rule regarding the measure of general damages is that the award is such a sum of money that will put the party who has been injured or who has suffered as adjudged by court in the same position as he or she would have been had he or she not sustained the wrong for which he or she is getting the compensation. General damages are awarded at the discretion of court and are compensatory in nature, not meant to enrich the plaintiff.
Damages & Quantum — Interest — Discretion of Court — Just and Reasonable Rate
The court can award interest that is just and reasonable under section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act. In determining a just and reasonable rate, courts take into account the ever-rising inflation and drastic depreciation of the currency, awarding such rate as would not neglect the prevailing economic value of money while insulating the plaintiff against economic vagaries.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (14)

  • Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562
  • Kirungi and Another v Kabiya and Others [1987] KLR 347
  • Security 2000 Ltd v Cumberland (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 916 of 2014)
  • H. Kateralwire v Paul Lwanga [1989-90] HCB 56
  • Simon Apollo Nangiro and Another v Uganda Electricity Distribution Company Ltd (Civil Suit No. 489 of 2004)
  • Oil Energy Ltd v Komakech Robert (High Court Civil Appeal No. 111 of 2019)
  • Re Polemis & Furness Withy & Co [1921] 3 KB 560
  • Jane Nakawunyu v H.K Kafureka (High Court Civil Suit No. 19 of 1993)
  • W.M Kyambadde v Mpigi District Administration [1983] HCB 44
  • Kabandize John Baptist and 21 Others v Kampala Capital City Authority (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 36 of 2016)
  • Takiya Kashwahiri and Another v Kajungu Denis (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 85 of 2011)
  • Milly Masembe v Sugar Corporation (U) Ltd and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2000)
  • Mohanlal Kakubhai Radia v Warid Telecom Uganda Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 224 of 2011)
  • Uganda Development Bank v Muganga Construction Co. Ltd [1981] HCB 35

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ssekimwanyi v Ssebuliba & Another (Civil Suit 313 of 2021) [2024] UGCommC 176 (23 May 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.