Wakilii

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

High Court · [2020] UGHCCD 127 · 2020 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for negligence and breach of duty of care arising from road construction accident, proceeding ex parte after defendant failed to appear
Decision
Judgment entered for plaintiff with damages and costs awarded; defendant liable for negligent breach of duty of care

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 held that the defendant construction company owed a duty of care to road users when conducting construction works on a busy road. The defendant breached this duty by abandoning concrete barriers in the middle of Yusuf Lule Road without adequate warning signs or reflectors. The plaintiff was entitled to compensation for the written-off vehicle valued at UGX 70 million, special damages of UGX 40.6 million for hire and towage costs, general damages of UGX 15 million, interest at 8% per annum from judgment, and costs.

Outcome

Judgment entered for plaintiff with damages and costs awarded; defendant liable for negligent breach of duty of care

Facts

On 1 July 2016, the plaintiff was driving his Mercedes Benz motor vehicle along Yusuf Lule Road towards Garden City when he rammed into a concrete barrier that had been abandoned in the road by the defendant construction company during road construction works. The barrier had no warning signs or reflectors to alert road users. The collision caused extensive damage to the vehicle, which was subsequently written off and its number plates surrendered to the Uganda Revenue Authority. Prior to the accident, a motor vehicle inspection report showed the vehicle was in good mechanical condition. The plaintiff incurred towage charges of UGX 400,000 and had to hire alternative transport from 2 July 2016 onwards, incurring costs of UGX 40,200,000. The defendant filed a defence but neither the defendant nor its counsel appeared at the scheduled hearing date despite having consented to it. The matter proceeded ex parte under Order 9 Rule 20(1)(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant company owed the duty of care as regards to the use and safety of 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.
  • Defendant to compensate plaintiff UGX 70,000,000 for the written-off motor vehicle Mercedes Benz Reg. No. UAS 880G.
  • Special damages awarded to plaintiff in the sum of UGX 40,600,000 (UGX 40,200,000 for hire charges and UGX 400,000 for towage).
  • General damages awarded to plaintiff in the sum of UGX 15,000,000.
  • Interest at 8% per annum on general damages and special damages from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Negligence — Duty of Care — Road Construction Companies
A construction company undertaking road construction works owes a duty of care to road users to take reasonable precautions to avoid acts or omissions which it can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure them, including persons who are so closely and directly affected by its acts that it ought reasonably to have them in contemplation when placing obstacles or barriers on public roads.
Negligence — Standard of Care — Warning Signs and Reflectors
Where a construction company places road barriers in the middle of a busy road during construction works, the standard of care requires it to place clearly visible warning signs or reflectors to alert road users of the presence of such barriers during daylight and at night, or alternatively to remove the barriers from the middle of the road to the side or to cordon off the road. Failure to do so constitutes a breach of the duty of care.
Ex Parte Proceedings — Unchallenged Evidence
Where a defendant fails to appear at the hearing of a suit and the matter proceeds ex parte under Order 9 Rule 20(1)(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules, unchallenged evidence adduced by the plaintiff should be taken to be the truth, subject to it not being inherently incredible or not cogent.
Special Damages — Pleading and Proof
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. A plaintiff who specifically pleads special damages and adduces documentary evidence such as hire agreements and towage receipts meets the criteria for the award of special damages.
General Damages — Assessment and Award
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 injured plaintiff for direct probable consequences of the act complained of, including loss of use, loss of profit, or physical inconvenience.
Interest on Damages — Rate in Non-Commercial Matters
Where an award of damages arises from a tortious act such as negligence causing an accident, and no commercial transaction is involved, the court may exercise its discretion under section 26(2) of the Civil Procedure Act to award interest at 8% per annum from the date of judgment until payment in full, rather than the commercial rate of 25% per annum.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (9)

  • Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100
  • Caparo Industries plc 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. 7 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 of Uganda (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 127 (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.