Wakilii

Ssekubwa v China Railway Seventh Group Limited (CIVIL SUIT NO. 10 OF 2017)

High Court · [2020] UGHCCD 128 · 2020 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for compensation arising from motor vehicle damage caused by negligence. Defendant did not appear at hearing and matter proceeded ex parte.
Decision
Plaintiff awarded total compensation of UGX 125,600,000 plus interest and costs

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 construction company undertaking road works owes a duty of care to road users and must take reasonable precaution by placing visible warning signs or reflectors to alert road users of hazards. Where the defendant abandoned concrete barriers in the middle of a busy road without warning signs, this constituted a breach of duty of care causing foreseeable damage. The plaintiff was awarded special damages for the written-off vehicle (UGX 70,000,000), special damages for hire and towage (UGX 40,600,000), general damages (UGX 15,000,000), interest at 8% per annum, and costs.

Outcome

Plaintiff awarded total compensation of UGX 125,600,000 plus interest and costs

Facts

On 1 July 2016, the plaintiff was driving his Mercedes Benz motor vehicle along Yusuf Lule road when he rammed into a concrete barrier that had been abandoned in the middle of the road by the defendant during construction works. No warning signs or reflectors had been placed to alert road users. The motor vehicle sustained extensive damage and was written off, with its number plates surrendered to URA. Prior to the accident, the vehicle was in good mechanical condition. The motor vehicle was registered in the names of Sembera Ivan but had been purchased by the plaintiff and was being transferred to him. As a result of the accident, the plaintiff incurred towage costs and had to hire alternative transport for his business. The defendant filed a defence but neither the defendant nor its counsel appeared at the scheduled hearing despite the agreed date. The matter proceeded ex parte.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant company owed a duty of care as regards the use and safety of the road.
  2. Whether there was a breach of duty of care by the defendant.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Judgment for the plaintiff.
  • Special damages awarded: UGX 40,200,000 for alternative transport hire and UGX 400,000 for towage, totalling UGX 40,600,000.
  • Compensation awarded for the written-off motor vehicle: UGX 70,000,000.
  • General damages awarded: UGX 15,000,000.
  • Interest awarded at 8% per annum on general and special damages from date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Negligence — Duty of Care — Road Users and Construction Companies
A construction company undertaking road works owes a duty of care to road users to take reasonable precautions to avoid acts or omissions which can reasonably be foreseen as likely to cause injury. Where a construction company places barriers or hazards on a public road, it must place clearly visible warning signs, reflectors, or cordon off the road to alert road users of the danger, particularly in conditions of darkness or poor visibility.
Negligence — Breach of Duty — Standard of Care
The standard of care requires that a reasonable person take precaution against foreseeable risk. A party breaches its duty of care when it falls below the standard of care appropriate to that duty by failing to perform its duty as reasonably required in the circumstances. Abandoning concrete barriers in the middle of a busy road without warning signs constitutes a breach of the duty of care owed to road users.
Ex Parte Proceedings — Unchallenged Evidence
Where a defendant fails to appear at a scheduled hearing despite proper service and the matter proceeds ex parte, unchallenged evidence adduced by the plaintiff is taken to be the truth, subject to it not being inherently incredible or lacking cogency.
Damages — Special Damages — Proof Requirements
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. Where a plaintiff pleads special damages and adduces documentary evidence such as hire agreements and towage receipts proving the sums spent, the criteria for the award of special damages are met.
Damages — General Damages — Assessment and Discretion
The award of general damages is in the discretion of the court which should be exercised judicially taking into account the circumstances of the case. General damages are compulsory in nature and should offer some satisfaction to the aggrieved plaintiff. Such damages are direct probable consequences of the act complained of and may include loss of use, loss of profit, or physical inconvenience.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (9)

  • Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100
  • Caparo v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605
  • Jane Nakawungu v Kafureka (HCCS No. 19 of 1993)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Stephen Mabosi (SCCA No. 29 of 1995)
  • Mate Bilhwangero Enos v Muhindo Oniz (HCCA No. 49 of 2016)
  • Hajji Asuman Mutekanga v Equator Growers (U) Ltd (SCCA No. 07 of 1992)
  • Superior Construction Engineering Ltd v Notay Engineering Ltd (HCCS No. 24 of 1994)
  • Crescent Transportation Co. Ltd v B.M. Technical Services Ltd (CACA No. 25 of 2000)
  • Oketha Dafala Valentine v Attorney General (HCCS No. 69 of 2004)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ssekubwa v China Railway Seventh Group Limited (CIVIL SUIT NO. 10 OF 2017) [2020] UGHCCD 128 (29 May 2020)
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.