[1995] UGHCCD 10

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA ' CIVIL SUIT NO.2J1/93

| ABEDNEGO | ABSOLOM | ONGOM | | PLAINTIFF | |----------|---------|-------|--------|-----------| | | | | VERSUS | | | AMOS | KAHERO | | | DEFENDANT | | | | | | 10'- | | | | | | |

BEFORE:- HON. MR. JUSTICE-J. P. BERKO

JUDGEMENT: .

to be a businessman claiming general and special damages, interest and cost being the'loss he suffered as a result of ^ulu District and Hon. Abednego Absclom Ongom is a member of the National Resistance Council representing Omoro bounty of Chairman Board of Directors of the Uganda Transport Corporation Lt :. He has brought this action against Amos Kahero who is said negligence of the servant or agent of Amos Kahero.

is"

f

>0 He slowed, down at a road block. After passing the road block he saw a Toyota Haice he later identified as UPJ 120 coining from the opposite dirccti ;n. As he was approaching vehicle No. UPJ 120 H<~>n Abednego Absalom Ongom hooted his car hern and applied his breaks to avoid **5o** Vehicle UXV 0S8 tried to sneek between UPJ 120'and' Hon Abednego's vehicle UPE 37? ^s but the driver of H^n Abednego\*s vehicle and. vehicle UXV 088 continued, and. came to a step he suddenly saw another vehicle, he later identified as UXV 688 trying to over take ui:;J 120 at a very fast speed. The vehicle UXV \*88 at some distance off'the read. with registration number UPE 377• He had three other persons in the car. He reached ®ombo town between 4 pm and 5 pm. UXV \*88 could not. hit each o£her. Hon. Aiednego's vehicle stopped in the middle . ... of the road at the point of impact. The cause of the action arose in t>"4 following circumstances\* On 17/8/92 Hon. Abednego Absolojn Ongom was returning from Gulu to Kampala. He was driving his Passat Volkswagen Saloon Car a head on collision.

Hen. Abednege sustained injuried. He was rushed to Nsambya Respital where he was admitted and treated by Dr. Edward Nadamba Kironde, an Orthopeadic Surgeaon (PW1)/

$-37-$

It is the case of Hon. Abednego that the accident was caused sclely as a result of the negligence of Amos Kahero's driver who was in charge of the vehicle in the course of employment and consequently Amos Kaheru is being held vicariously liable.

The particulars of negligence relied were pleaded the plaint. These are that the defendant's driver :

$\cdots \cdots$ $\cdot$ $\cdot$

- $\verb!(i)!\!$ failed to keep any cr proper look out for the plaintiff's vehicle and wother wehicles that might be on the road. 15 - $(ii)$ he failed to slow down and take care while trying to over take the lorry UPJ 120. - (iii) he failed to break and take care to avoid hitting the plaintiff's mater vehicle. - (iv) he drove negligently, carelessly, recklessly without due caro or regard for other road users and at a speed excessive in the circumstances. - (v) whe failed to stop, to slow down, to swerve or in any way to nanceuvre and/or control the defendants said motor vehicle so as to avoid the accident.

(vi) crushing into plaintiff's motor vehicle.

In the written statement of defence Ames Kahere has admitted The fact that accident involving his vehicle UXV 088 and UPE 377 Lid take place on 17/8/92 at Kakerenge village. He has, however, denied that he is liable to make good the loss suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the accident. The first reason he gave for denying liability is that he is not the registered owner of vehicle UXV c88, the registered owner being CODA Communications. Then again he says that he has only an equitable interest in the said vehicle. The reason being that he bought the vehicle from one Saleiman Kabanda at the price of 4,500,00 $\bullet$ /= but he has nct finished we instalments payment and therefore the said,

outcry negligence. Suleiman Kabanda is beclinic ally, the owner of the vehicle. He has also denied that his driver was solely responsible for the cause of bhe accident and has accused the plaintiff of being guilty of contri-Finally he has denied.that the plaintiff suffered any . injuries or loss. ■. '

to 'S' The reason for his absence. <The plaintiff was,. The written statement of defence was drawn up and filed on his behalf by M/s Mpungu and Company Advocates. Mr. Mpungu appeared on behalf of/the defendant at the trial on 1/12/94 and proposed settlement out of: pcurt; As a result the case was adjourned to the 11/1/95 to see if iticould be settled. When the case came up on 11/12/95 Mr. Mpungu informed caurt. that the defendant had withdrawn his instructions from him and sought leave t~ withdraw. Mr. Mpungu was allowed t-~ Withdraw. The defendant asked for time to engage a new lawyer. ' That application was granted. The case was adjourned to 20/4.95. '"The defendant did not come to c-'urt on the'20/4/95\* se^urt' -wa3-n't: tel as a result, allowed to proceed ex-parte. ,

*f* After the isshe's have been settled, one Mr. James Muhumuza, a legal assistant to Mrs. Kobina Kiyingi of M/s Kiyingi and Company Advocates came and informed the court that Mrs. Robina, who has apparently been instructed by.the defendant, could not come to court O.- .• • ... • . as her child had been involved in an accident that morning. .\* Follo- •r • -f;. ; wing that message the case was adjourned to the 12/6/95 in the presence of the Legal'Assistant of Mrs. Robina Kiyingi.. Both the defendant and Mrs. Robina Kiyingi did not come to court pnthe -4 12/6/95 and have not appeared in court again.

. *'* • . t What I have set out above explains why the trial proceeded ex-parte. u.

Tt:'d3B appropriate at this stafee to set out for my guidance what the Supreme Court has directed as the duty/a trial court when conducting ex-parte proceedings: This was stated in the case of peparted Asians Custodian Board v Issa Bukenya t/a New Mars War House Civil Appeal 26 of 1992 (unreported) and it is as follows:- **- -/I- " -y .. ,**

*i*

t

*S*

"IT allogations are made in the plaint so that the facts alleged support the prayers asked for, and then the prayers called for are legally justified, then all that is necessary is for the court to hear evidence which proves the facts and hear submissions of law illustrating that the remedies are justified. $\quad \texttt{Care} \quad$ must of course be taken that the distinction between general and special damages is satisfactorily pleaded. It must be understood that the evidence led is such that, without<br>contradiction by the defendant, it is sufficient to prove the claim. It is not necessary that the facts alleged should be queried, but the facts alleged must be full and accurate enough to support the plaint. A Judge may<br>assist the plaintiff in pointing out that the evidence so far adduced is not sufficiently rull and accurate, and that giverner evidence, documentary or oral, may be needed<br>to support the claim. What cannot be done<br>is that remedies are granted as prayed, which are not supported by the pleadings."

Before considering the evidence and the issues in the gase. I propose to dispose of the technical defences raised in the written statement of defence. It was pleaded in paragraph 2 af the Written statement of Defence that Amos Kaheru is not the owner the vehicle UXV 088 as he is not the registered owner. Reliance is apparently placed on S.6(1) of the Traffic Ordinance (1951) which reads: -

> "The person in whose name the vehicle is registered shall, unless the contrary is proved, be deemed to be the owner of the vehicle."

This contention can be shortly disposed of by saying that I am Latisfied that the defendant is and was the owner of the car from The date on which he acquired it from Mr. Suleiman Kabanda. The presumption created by S6(1) has, therefore been rebutted. $\mathbf{I}\mathbf{t}$ was also contented by Lmos Kaheru that he has only an equitable interest in the vehicle because he has not paid the full purchased it.

This argument does not hold water in view of the provisions of S26(2) of the Sale of Goods Ordinance. The defendant having makaimmax bought or agreed to buy the car from Mr. Saleiman Kabanda and having obtained possession of it with the consent of the said Saleiman Kabanda, he became the owner of it even though he has not paid all the instalments. The transfer of title and payment of purchase price, in a contract of sale, are not concurrent conditions

$45$

LD

าร

$25$

$35$

ųο

**•s** io IS **r** •■ '• • #Atf ;.5^r•<<\*•- /z The positon¹ would. have, been different- if the contract'between the defendant and the said Saleiman Kabanda had been hire purchase agreement-in the-strict scnce:In which case there would have • • >^been nb'purchase and'no agreement .to purchase until the-hirer actual! -exercised the .-option r-;iven him:Matayo . Musoke. v- Alibhal<Garage Ltd 0960)^ ^A. *y\\* Helby ^v Mathews and others (1695) AC ⁴⁷¹\* • I now want to turn to the issues\* On the first\* issue the evidence-on>record^t which I '.'accept, was that - the. defendants ¹ driver was'attempting to ovar^take vehicles-No UPJ'120'on.a.sharp, corner **F ^a** hill, There was ^a big fall on the right side, of-the raod. On the left §ide, was a wall.: The-plaintiff applied his brakes and •oynded his horn-. To avoid a head .on collision, the defendant\*⁵ driver veered'a7little bit to.the right to pass between the pla^n\* tiff+s vehicle and the other vehicle UPJ <120., Ip. the process the plaintiff'S'vehicle hit the left side door of the - defendants vehicle\* All . the eye.'witnesses .said-the the defendant's driver was :.very fa«t\* Negligence is a failure, to..take care in all the circumstaneeg of the case and. I have to -look, at all the circumstances .before particular user of the peaching conclusions. The principle.is that any/highwag owes a duty-to any other particular user not to do or omit •'^anything •"hi »h he . might reasonably anticipate, might injure, the other.or at ...east where such'-;.-, person might reasonably be expected to. be injured vy a failure to take care\* . The duty is owed to persons so placed nhat they may reasonably.expect to be injured, by-the omission -take such care:-.-- ... . •

. I^m'T-liill v Young (194-5) AC 95 . ?.

The-proper-care connotes,, avoidance of excessive speed, keeping a g©ed look. outv-, observing traffic rules and signals,- But there is n^' duty .to. foresee, the driving of. an insane person; .

. UhallQ-ncr v William & Groney (1975) ¹ Lloyd's R . The facts of the case clearly shows that the defendant's driver attempted to over-take vehicle UPJ 120 at a place when it was n^fc »afe to do so. The course he took to avoid a head on .collision was a hazardous operation. He was therefore negligent..

that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, particulars of the plaintiff '^s said negligence were not given in X the written statement of defends. In -any event the onus is on the defendant-to prove that the plaintiff's contributory negligence was a substantial or material co-operating cause of the accident, inhere is no such proof in this case. In the written statement of Defence the defendant -has-The

**\*41 -**

travelling In my Judgement I find the defendant's driver was too fast and that Tie~attempted-to over-take a leading vehicle when it was not safe to do. He also failed to have due regard to other road users. '

He was therefore wholly in'default in that, duty which a man owes his neighbour in circumstances such as this.

70 Therefore ^a Tn this case\* however, the defendant has .admitted in his written statement of defence that the person who was in charge of the v- vehicle, Godfrey ubabazi, was his servant. There is no allegation that the said Godfrey Fbabazi was not driving the vehicle in the course of employment or was on a fr .lie of his own. incharge of the defendant's vehicle at the relevant time. if the issue had been contested the plaintiff would have been fequired to prove it. ^hat relationship could not • ^e assumed, *f* Jovelyn Barpgare v Attorney General Civil Appeal No.28/9? (un®epg^ted The next issue is whether or- not the defendant- is vicariously liable for the negligence of the driver, ^he defendant can only be held liable *i*or the negligence of the driver who was in charge of defendant's vehicle if the relationship of master and servant is established. The plaintiff did not see the driver who was

In my judgement, I find and hold that the defendant is vicariously liable for the negligence of the driver.

The next'question is the damages, if any the plaintiff , is entitled to. . The plaintiff has sued the defendant for

(i) general damages. ' '

'

(ii) • special damages.

(::<) coast of the suit.

(iv; interest at Bank rate. ... •

*z*

*r*

*S ^r*

**L**

Vo

**l**

"all deal first with the special damages. The particulars $\mathcal{L}^{\bullet} = \mathcal{L}^{\bullet} = \mathcal{L}^{\bullet}$ special damages were set out in paragraph 7 of the plaint. The irst item is the cost of private medical treatment. The figures $\mathbb{R}^n \cong \mathbb{R}^n \times \mathbb{R}^n \times \mathbb{R}^n$ $\mathcal{L} = \mathcal{L}$ given is Rbillings 1,240,000/=.

$-42-$

The plaintif was admitted at Nsambya Hospital after the $\sim$ $\sim$ $\sim$ accident. He was attended to by Dr. Edward Nadamba Kironde, an $\mathcal{L}^{\mathcal{A}}$ $\mathbf{L} = \mathbf{d} \cdot \mathbf{d} \mathbf{v}$ Orthopeadic Surgeon and a Consultant from Mulago Hospital. It was that doctor who operat.d upon the plaintiff at Nsambya Hospital $\mathbf{a} = \mathbf{a}^{\mathbf{a}} \mathbf{a}^{\mathbf{a}} \mathbf{a}^{\mathbf{a}} \mathbf{a}^{\mathbf{a}} \mathbf{a}^{\mathbf{a}} \mathbf{a}^{\mathbf{a}}$ and continued with out patient treatment at Mulago after his dis- $\mathcal{A} \mathcal{A} \mathcal{A} \mathcal{A} \mathcal{A} \mathcal{A} \mathcal{A}$ $\cdots$ charge from Nsambya. It was the same doctor who prepared the inel medical report for the plaintiff. For his private treatment both at Nsambya and at Mulago, Uganda Transport Co Ltd, where the plaintiff is a chairman, paid a bill of $1,240,000/$ = which the $\cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots$ plaintiff will have to refund at lattr.

Thought no receipts have been produced, I am prepared to accept the ligure as proved. The plaintiff is entitled to judgement for that sum. He also claimed 180,000/= being the allowances he would have earned as chairman of Uganda Transport Co Ltd. this was pheaded in theplaint and is supported by evidence in court. I will award that sum to the plaintiff.

There is also a claim of 3000/= for police accident report. The plaintiff said in court that he paid 5000/=shillings. The plaintiff put in evidence vehicle Inspection Report, and Abstract of particulars of an Accident Involving a Motor vehicle. Though the relevant receipts were not produced, these reports are not given free of charge. I would therefore award the sum of 3000/= pleaded in the body of the plaint.

There is also a claim of 269,000/=. This was said to be cost of Transport from the scene of the accident to Nsambya $\gamma = \frac{1}{2}$ $\mathbf{1}$ Hospital and between home and Nsambya and Mulago Hospitals by plaintiff and his wife. The only evidence the plaintiff gave was that he spent money on alternative transport. He did not $\cdots \rightarrow \cdots$ say how much it cost him to hire an alternative Transport. He also said his wife spent money on transport to visit him in hospital. How runch she spent on transport was not indicated. 20

J,

$15^{\circ}$

$\overline{16}$

I am unable to make any award in respect of transport ' as that expenses expenses/have not been proved\*

-

as "loss of A^so claimed is a sum of 30,000,000/= shillings, thejmofror vehicle Registration No. UFE 577»" his written statement of defence, the defendant has challenged the claim of shillings \$0,000,000/= for loss of the motor vehicle Registration No. UPJJ 577 the ground that the figure was .. uncalled for and . unwarranted since Annexture A to the plaint did not state that as a result of the accident, the plaintiff's vehicle was written off^t ... \_\_ The plaint also did not aver that the plaintiff has purchased a n\$w vehicle.

**s'**

**L**

**L**

**L**

**r**

**L**

**[**

L

90 The evidence he gave about his car is that it is aT^assajj Volkswagen Saloon car. To prove the extent of damage to the the plaintiff put in evidence vehicle Inspection Report (ExhtP4^ The particulars of damage were:-

- **(D** Windscreen smashed - C2) . Vehicle body roof damaged at front end. - Bonnet folded,

Front mudguard folded and torn,

..... .(5) Front bumper torn,

(6). . . All head lights smashed.

(7) Radiator damaged beyond repair.

(§) . Nearside front tyre and tube burst and its rim folded\*

(9) Front seats frame bent\*

I

Rear view mirrors smashed\*

ell} Nearside suspension bent.

Chassis frame bent unwards preventing clutch ■brake and m accelerator movements

From .the contents of Exh P4 get opt above the only item that was. peyozid .repair is the Radiator,

The report from Cooper Kotor Corporation (U) Ltd is rather conning. It started of by listing the spare par^S needed fo» the repair of the vehicle\* The total estimate came to shij^ings It then said that the over all costs of repaid weuld ¥e between 9 million to 10 million shillings, then their coclusion that the car. is beyond economic repair can only be justified if the.pre-accident value of the car was less thax \*ra little over 10 million'shillings. The vehicle Inspection Report (Exh J?4) has rendered The ^ooper . Motor Corporation (U) Ltd highly suspections and unreliable. ¥he list of damaged items indicated in The Cooper iiotor Corporation (U) Ltd report are greatly variance, with the . list in the vehicle Inspection Report.

of-goods, the normal measure of damages is taken to be the IS market value tf the goods destroyed at the time and place of destruction.. • For instance in the case of Interfreight Forwarders The general principle of lav/ is that in cases of destruction delivered at Kampala. -The car was brand new and it had just been purchased at pound sterling d9zl-65- The car was damaged beyond repair in a road accident while being transported frt/n \* fcombasa to Kampala. The- Principal Judge awarded to the plaintiff the -sum ,.af £1O2?5 because ..that .was the new cost of a similar Volvo Car to replace the damaged one even though in the plaint the plaintiff only claimed :;9465. The award Was approved by the Supreme Court. The cost.of the substitue new Volvo. Car was regarded as consequential damage following the tort on the authority of Moore, v ^D /-S. R. . Ltd. (19?1) ¹ ^LR 1A7*•* (U)vLtd v East Africa . Development Bank Civil Appeal No.?3\_+f\_ 199? (unreported).. the defendants/applellants had agreed for reward to clear . the plaintiffs Volvo i'otor Car ^tfrom Mombasa and

mair^tunacp - \* accident value of the plaintiff's car. as te the year it was manufactured, how much the plaintiff paid f\*r it and when it was purchased, what sort of driving \* it has been subjected to and what has yeen the standard of 'i •In this case no evidence has been given as to the pre-There was no evidence

*i*

**I**

1/0

3\$T

Instead of the above ^Tvital' etfichLnot, - \ obtained from Wava Holdings Ltd a proforma Invoice for a new Lassat CL Saloon car costing shillings 48,450,000/=. »ince the car that was damaged was not a new car, I cannot see the justification, of awarding a figure that would enable the plaintiff go purchase a new car to replace a -aamaged one.

It was **[** - a car ef no particular distinction but a very old .car. car he had the damaged lie brought an action against The court of Appeal in that an award that would enable him to get another car comparable to the damaged car in make and age: In the case of parbishire u \* Warren (/1965) 1- WLR '106?, the j^laintiff had had -an old Leja-Francis motor'car badly damaged in an accident, and a substitute car could have been bought by him'for £55- A person is not entitled to make a profit out of damage caused to him by another; end this is precisely what would happen if the plaintiff were entitled to replace the used, car by a new one: Express Transport Co Ltd v BAT Tanzania Ltd (1968^ FA 445> In my humble opinion the plaintiff is only entitled tA Apparently the plaintiff had some affection for the car and having recoined the £85, instead of buying a substitute car repaired at a cost of .2\*192. the tortfeasor claiming .2\*192. case said that it was quite unreasonable for the plaintiff tt. spend £19^ on repairing his old car instead of buying -another\* car or £85. *'*

*3^* v The figure In the plaint the plaintiff has claimed, shillings \* 3»,t#%e00/=. There is no evidence showing how the figure was • \* arrived at. Since the defendant has challenged that figure, the plaintiff bore the burden of proving how that figure was .arrived at. The figure cannot be said to represent the cost of repairs because the repairs had had not been carried out and no seridr\*" estimate was put forward\* Kibimba Rice Company Ltd v UL!AR Salim Civil Appeal Ko. 7 of /1988 (Unreported). #f 50,0^0,000/= is also not the purchase price ef a substitute car comparable to the damaged car in make and age, as no substitute car has been purchased: Barbishir^e

• -45 -

**[**

**[**

**[**

**[**

**L**

**[**

**r**

**r**

Warran (Supra). Special damage. and prove it\* EA 789 at 796. claim. The claim for the 50,000,000/= is a claim of The plaintiff was therefore obligee./". This is cle rly explained in Shamji v Bhatt (1^65) The plaintiff has not been able to prove that

**- 46 -**

jo

He been placed in an awkward position, £ at a place he did not want to be. He had to get on with his affairs without his car.- I would no evidence before me on which I can do so. whatever award I can make would be compessionate but I cannot order the defendant, The plaintiff is of course, entitled to some damages. has no doubt lost a car and as a member of Parliament, he has But he did not put forward a sound case and prove it. have been prepared to entertain a general claim, but there is ^qjid completept mechanic be given with the consent of the parties: KIMMBA Rice UMAR v Salim (Supra). ho has not appeared, to go before a "mutually agreed, recognised 2 for assessment. That order can only Company

The claim for 50>00°,000/= therefore fails.

He found that he had broken his left lee,. He was admitted at N; ambya Hospital he realised that he could not stand on his leg. He had a small cut on the face and for 5 months. in a P. O. P which was removed four months later. with physiothereapy treatment. deep cut on his left ankle. The fractured log was fixed with screws and put He continued injuries as shows that when he came out of the vehicle after the accident a result of the accident. The plaintiff also claimed general damages for personal The evidence of the plaintif.

*3^* saw He was treated by Dr.. Edward Nadamba Kironde, an Authopeadic Surgeon attached to Mulago Hospital. When the Dr plaintiff at Nsambya Hospital , he noted that the plaintiff had the following injuries;

(i) A comminuted fracture involving the distal tibia communicating with ankle joint;

$(ii)$ A medi¹. malleolus first ligica poits left amilôn joint; and

$\overline{16}$

$15$

$\mathcal{P}^{\mathcal{P}^{\mathcal{P}}}_{\mathcal{P}}$ $-4子-$

(iii) Multiple wounds on the face and hands. The plaintiff was operated upon and the leg put in a F. O. F. Final x-ray show narrowing of the joint space of the left ankle joint and irregularities of the articulamargins of the tibial surface. The fracture is completely healed. The main problem left is post traumatic articlisof the left ankle. The Dr assessed his permanent disability at 60%.

In my judgement I have no doubt that the injuries of the plaintiff were caused by the accident.

The plaintiff is 59 years of age. He is a member of NRC. Apart from the allowances he received as Chairman of Uganda Transport Co. Ltd, no evidence was given as to his earnings and life style.

General damages for pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life are continuing intag ible misfortune and incapable of arithmetical calculation. In such a case the plaintiff should be awarded fair and reasonable compensation to be assessed in the light of previous recent awards in respect of comparable damage.

I was referred to the case of Matiya Byabalema and 2 others V Uganda Transport Co (1975) Ltd where the 1st appellant who was builder and a painter aged 40 years sustained a crush injury on the right ankle and foot as a result of which an above-knee amputation of the leg was carried out. His permanent disability was assessed at 60%. The trial court awarded him 4 million shillings. The Supreme Court increased it to 9 million shillings.

The injuries in this case are not similar to the injuries in the case cited by the Learned Counsel for the plaintiff. The plaintiff in this case has not lost any limb. The $\cdot$ $\cdot$ fracture has nicely healed. The only problem the plaintiff now has is post tranmatic artiritis complication because of the lowering of the joint space.

In Kyambabadde v Uganda Electricity Board, H. C. C. No.1 of 1990, the plaintiff, a minor aged 10 years, was electricate in and burnt on the left arm and ampit with resulting ugly hypertrophic scars and reduced shoulder movements. He also sustained injuries in the left thigh, with total disability of 35%; He was awarded 9 million shillings general damages. The plaintiff's injuries are no where near the injuries in the above case. Though he had injuries to the arm and face, there are no resultant ugly hypertraphic scars and reduction in the shoulder and arm movements.

In the case of Godfrey Kateregga U. E. B. H. C. C. No.93(B) of 1989, the plaintiff was working with the defendant Board as an electrician was electricuted and suffered head \_\_ r injury to the urethra which severly limited his sexual life and fracture of the pelvis which had united. He had a deformity or 30%. He was awarded shillings 15 million as general damages. The injuries in this case are not similar to those sustained by Kateregga. The plaintiff did not sustained head injury. His sexual life has not been affected by the fracture to the leg.

The degree of disability in the two cases I have cited above and the case of Matiya Byabolema and 2 others v Uganda Transport Co (1975) (Supra) where the 1st Appellant who had an above knee amputation had his disability assessed at 60% and also Christopher Kiggundu and Anor v UTC (1975) Ltd Civil Appeal No 7 of 1993 where the 1st appellant who had an above the knee amputation's permanent disability was assessed at 60%, clearly show that the 60% disability given to the plaintiff for potts fracture that had healed nicely, was highly exaggerated by the plaintiff's Doctor. I do not know how he would have assessed the plaintiffs disability if plaintiff had lost a limb.

There is, however, no doubt that the plaintiff has suffered and. injuries, pain and incovenience $\angle$ discomfort. He was operated upon and the sig was put in a P. OF. for four months. $\rm He$

$35$

$\mathcal{L}$

$\leq$

■must have under gone considerable pain and .. discomfort durin the period he was wearing the P. O. P. He had to carry screws Ther is also Doing the best I can in the circumstances, I would award a Composite sum of shillings 5 million (Five Million) shillings, in his body for one year before they were removed. the problem of post traumatic artritis in the left ankle joint. as general damages for personal injuries because of the mb&y intangible involved. The award is not far -from the shillings \6 million suggested by Learned Counsel fro the plaintiff.

*-M-*

Judgement is therefore entered for the plaintiff for the sums of 1,240,000/= plus shillings 180,000/= plus shillings \$000/= making a total of shillings 1,425,003/=,

Genral payment in full and on the general damages from date of judgement until payment in full plus costs of' the suit. - . *}* Special damages + shillings 5,000,000/- (b) damages. I award interest at court's rate on the special damage from the date of filing the suit to date of

J. P. 18/10/1995.

*f*

*£*

It)

lb"

**[**

## THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

$-50-$

## IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA CIVIL SUIT NO. 231 OF 1993

ABEINEGO ABSOLOM ONGOM ...... .......... PLAINTIFF

## **VERSUS**

AMOS KAHERU ..... $\cdots$ DEFENDANT

## DECREE IN ORIGINAL SUIT

CLAIM for special and general damages for personal injuries and the recovery of the market value of damaged motor vehicle Passat Saloon Registration No. UPE 377 plus costs.

This suit coming this 18th day of October, 1995 for final disposal before the Hon. Mr. Justice Joseph Berko on application by Kinyera p'Lodi Esq; Counsel for the plaintiff and in the absence of both the defendant and his Counsel and upon judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant.

IT IS HEREBY DECREED and ORDERED that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff Shs. 1,423,000/= (Shillings one million four hundred twenty three thousand only), as special damages and Shs. 5,000,000/= (Shillings five million only) as general damages plus interest at court's rate on special damages from the date of filing the suit till payment in full and on general damages from the date of judgment until payment in full.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant do pay the taxed costs of the suit.

GIVEN under my hand and the Seal of the Court this .................................... day of $\ldots$ $\Omega$ $\ldots$ $\Omega$ $\ldots$ $\Omega$

**REGISTRAR**

$\mathbb{R}^2$