Uganda American Insurance Company Limited v Ruganzu (Civil Appeal 10 of 1992)

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 Supreme Court allowed the appeal. On vicarious liability, although a presumption arises that an employee driving the employer's car acts in the course of employment, that presumption is weak and was rebutted by evidence that the accident occurred on a Saturday when the offices were closed and the employee never reported carrying out any assigned duty. To fix liability on a vehicle owner it must be shown the driver was a servant acting in the course of employment or an agent using the car at the owner's request. The majority (Platt JSC, Manyindo DCJ) set aside the High Court judgment and dismissed the action with costs. The court also held that general damages unsupported by medical evidence and unproved special damages could not stand.

Outcome

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; the respondent's action dismissed with costs.

Facts

Lubega, the appellant insurance company's Marketing Manager, was provided with a company car (registration UXI 219) for official and personal use. On 4 April 1987, a Saturday evening when the company's offices were normally closed, the car knocked down the respondent, Phocas Ruganzu, as he was about to cross Kampala Road. The respondent was seriously injured, suffering facial wounds and fractures of the right humerus, scapula and femur. He underwent multiple operations in Uganda and Zimbabwe over more than two years, was left with a leg shortened by three inches, walked with a crutch, and gave up his produce business. He sued the company for general and special damages and the High Court awarded shs.9,583,900. Lubega was not joined as a party or called as a witness, had left the company by the time of trial, and there was no direct evidence of the purpose of his journey. The offices were closed on Saturdays, and although he reported the accident at the following Monday's meeting he never reported carrying out any assigned duty.

Issues

1. Whether the company's employee was acting in the course of his employment when the accident occurred, so that the employer was vicariously liable.
2. Whether the award of general damages for personal injury was excessive in the absence of supporting medical evidence.
3. Whether the special damages claimed were strictly proved.

Orders

• Appeal allowed.
• Judgment and decree of the High Court set aside.
• Action dismissed with costs both in the Supreme Court and in the High Court.

Rules and key headnotes

Cases cited (9)

• Livingstone v Rawyards Coal Co (1880) 5 App Cas 25
• Abid Hussein Quereshi v Pushpa (1961) EA 466
• George Kahinda v Abdul Malik Amarshi (HCCS No. 71 of 1969)
• Ekubana Butagazibwa v GG Holdings & Anor (HCCS No. 873 of 1964)
• NWAK AT. RMA V. JAMINDEP @ aRS (1969) E.a, 185
• J K Kitamirike v E Mutagubya (1965) EA 443
• MUDUKAYC GYUKU V. INYAYSIO OKELLO H.C.C.S. NO. 29 of 1969
• Bonham Carter v Hyde Park Hotel Ltd (1948) 64 TLR
• Morgans v Launchbury [1972] 2 All ER 606

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

• Ayena Odongo v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 38 of 2017)
• Uganda Breweries Limited v Uganda Railways Corporation (Civil Appeal 6 of 2001)

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