Teddy Birungi v Sekubwa and Others (Civil Appeal No. 32 of 1999)
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 bar the plaintiff's negligence claim because he did not need to rely on his illegal use of a dealer's plate as part of his cause of action; the maxim applies only where the illegality is inherent in the cause of action. The court found no error in the trial judge entering final judgment jointly and severally against the appellant and the third defendant following interlocutory judgment, and upheld the finding of vicarious liability because the appellant owned and controlled the vehicle driven by her servant in the course of employment. Costs followed the event.
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment holding the appellant vicariously liable upheld
Facts
Angela Amuge and her husband owned Mazda Mini Bus 407 UAF, registered in Amuge's name, and gave it to Amir Nsereko to repair and sell. The appellant, Teddy Sentongo Birungi, agreed to trade her Datsun pick-up plus cash for 407 UAF, paying Shs.1,500,000 and taking possession. While being driven by her driver, the third defendant Njawuzi Prosper, the vehicle collided with the plaintiff Wilberforce Sekubwa's Mercedes Benz on 12 December 1994. The third defendant left his lane to avoid a pothole and swerved into the plaintiff's lane. The plaintiff's Benz bore a garage/dealer number plate at the time. The third defendant was convicted of careless driving and the plaintiff was convicted of using an unregistered vehicle with a garage plate after 6pm. The High Court found the third defendant negligent, found the appellant owned and controlled the vehicle at the time, and held her vicariously liable, awarding Shs.11,024,000 in damages jointly and severally against the appellant and third defendant.
Issues
- Whether the plaintiff's claim was founded on an illegality that barred recovery under the maxim ex turpi causa non oritur actio because his vehicle was on the road bearing a dealer's plate.
- Whether the trial judge erred in entering judgment jointly and severally against the appellant and the third defendant.
- Whether the principle of vicarious liability was correctly applied to hold the appellant liable for the third defendant's negligence.
- Whether the trial judge properly evaluated the evidence.
- Whether costs were properly awarded to the first, second and fourth defendants against the appellant.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed with costs in favour of the first, second and fourth respondents.
Rules and key headnotes
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 Wofunha 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
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.