[1992] UGHC 66
The court found that the defendant, having failed to enter appearance or contest the claim, was liable for the accident involving the plaintiff's vehicle. The plaintiff's ownership and the extent of damage were established through uncontroverted evidence, including witness testimony and documentary proof. The court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1992] UGHC 66
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Frank Turyatunga; Defendant: Sietco International
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 934 of 1990
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Judgment
- Outcome
- judgment for the plaintiff
- Judges
- Tsekooko, J
- Legal Topics
- Motor Vehicle Accident, Assessment of Damages, Default Judgment
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Frank Turyatunga
Plaintiff
Sietco International
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defendant is liable for the accident involving the plaintiff's vehicle.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to special damages for repair costs and lost income.
- 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to general damages for inconvenience and loss.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the defendant, having failed to enter appearance or contest the claim, was liable for the accident involving the plaintiff's vehicle. The plaintiff's ownership and the extent of damage were established through uncontroverted evidence, including witness testimony and documentary proof. The court accepted the repair costs and awarded special damages accordingly. Lost income was calculated based on the period the vehicle was unavailable, with a reasonable adjustment for possible downtime. General damages were awarded for inconvenience, but the amount claimed was reduced to reflect the circumstances. Interest was granted on the total sum at the rate requested by counsel,...
Court Disposition
judgment for the plaintiff
Orders
- Special damages of UGX 2,753,000 awarded to the plaintiff.
- Lost income of UGX 3,600,000 awarded to the plaintiff.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
59 paragraphs
IN THE'HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA <sup>L</sup><sup>r</sup>im<sup>T</sup>~su:iT no, gj^-orM^e—— FRANK TURYATUNGA ....................................................................... PLAINTIFF. VERSUS
SIETCO INTERNATIONAL DEFENDANT. • BEFORB:■ The Honourable Mr. Justice J. W. N, Tseko'oko
## J <sup>U</sup> <sup>D</sup> <sup>G</sup> ME NT
In this suit the plaintiff claimed for general and special Ramages from the defendant because of an accident involving plaintiff<sup>1</sup> s vehicle Reg. No. UXT 0?8 and defendant's vehicle Registration No. UXZ 4l6<sup>t</sup> The accident occurred on 19th May, 1989 at Jezza on .. Mityana/Kampala Road .
The defendant was served with summons to enter appearance on 12th November, 1990^ Defendant failed to enter appearance. Interlocutory judgment was b'n -1-Sth February, 1991 entered against the defendant pursuant to 0.9 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The suit was before me on 2nd April, 1992 for purposes of assessment of damages. In fact according to affidavit of service defendant was served for purposes of hearing the case on 2nd April, 1992\* On that day nobody appeared for the defendant. According to our practice even the attendance would have been a formality.
The plaintiff established ownership of his vehicle. His evidence on damage to his vehicle is supported by PW2 (Twine Gershom) who v/as his turnboy of the vehicle. The same PW2
.... L/2
established the circumstances of how the defendants vehicle caused the -accident -on--19t.h\_May., 19.8^ an<sup>d</sup> how he and the driver reported the accident to Bujjuko Police post. This is uncontroverted.
*2*
PV/J, Michael Mukiibi, a mechanic testified to the damage he observed on the plaintiff's vehicle. He repaired the vehicle. He confirmed that plaintiff paid shs. 2,750,000/= to cover cost of spares and as labour charges. He also confirmed that plaintiff'<sup>s</sup> vehicle was in his garage for repair purposes from about May till 23rd September, <sup>1989</sup> when he handed it over to the plaintiff. He produced Exh. P.2 in support of Shs. 2,750,000/=. The vehicle was most probably taken to him during June, 1989 (See evidence of PW4) but this is immaterial.
PW4, ASP Francis Banganza, an I0V, confirmed having inspected the plaintiff's vehicle on 13th June, <sup>1989</sup> and noted his observations of damage and condition of the vehicle on Vehicle Inspection report Exh. P.1.
I agree with submissions of Mr. Akampurira that the claim for -Shs. 2,750,000/= Qcost of spares and labour charges) have been established and I ward that amount to the plaintiff. I also award him Shs. 3,000/= as cost of the Traffic Accident Peport.
In his evidence the plaintiff claimed for lost income at the rate of Shs. 30,000/= per day. That amount excludes the maintanance expences of the vehicle. He claimed that that amount is for the period 19th May, 1989 to 23rd September, 1989. The total number of days is <sup>126</sup> days. That would give lost income in all amounting to Shs. 3,780,000/=. Though counsel asked for 3,720,000/= which is for <sup>124</sup> days. Hower I don't expect, in a practical world, .. /3
that the plaintiff had the vehicle on the road for all 126 days without, for instance, servicing it. The service would cause some delay or reduce the income because the vehicle would not be operating. $T$ That would therefore round down the number of days to 120 days. gives lost income as Shs. 3,600,000/= which I award to the plaintiff.
Counsel submitted that I should award Shs. 2,000,000/= as general damages. I think that figure is too high in the circumstances of this case. I shall award the plaintiff Shs. 300,000/= as general damages.
Counsel submitted that I should order for the decretal amount to carry 40% p.a. as interest. I see problem with that. Therefore I agree. Actually interest on special damages abould normally accrue from date special damages are incurred. But I was not so moved.
Consequently judgment is entered for the plaintiff and against the defendant in those terms !-
- (i) Special damages Shs. $2,753,000/$ = - (ii) Lost income Shs. 3,600,000/= - (iii) General damages Shs. 300,000/= (Three hundred thousand) - (iv) Interest on the total sum of Shs. 6,653,000/= (i.e. on (i), (ii) and (iii)) at the rate of 40% p.a. from the date of this judgment till payment in full. - $(v)$ The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the taxed costs which shall carry interest at court rates from date of taxation till payment in full.
J. W. N. TSEKOOKO UDGE $19/6/1992.$
$10000000000000$
$\overline{3}$
$23/6/1992.$
Plaintiff present. Akampurira for plaintiff. Court clerk absent.
Judgment delivered in chambers as open court in presence of the $\ddot{\phantom{0}}$ $\tau_{\rm s} = \tau$ $\mathcal{A} = \mathcal{A} \cup \mathcal{A} \cup \mathcal{A} \cup \mathcal{A}$
$\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{A}) = \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{A})$
$\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{A}}(A) = \mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{A}}(A)$
$\mathbb{R}^2 \times \mathbb{R}^2$
a service process
$\mathcal{L} = \mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{L}}$
$\mathcal{L} = \mathcal{L} \mathcal{L}$
$\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{A}}(t)$
above.
$\ldots \rightarrow \cdots$
$\sim 40\,\mathrm{K}$
$\cdot$
$\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{A}) = \mathcal{A}(\mathcal{A})$
$\tau \in \mathcal{M}^{\infty}_{\mathcal{A}}$ ТЅЕКООКО $J. W. N$
$\sim$
$\mathcal{A} \stackrel{\text{def}}{=}$
$\cdots \cdot$
$\tilde{\mathcal{A}}$ $\mathcal{A}^{\mathcal{A}}_{\mathcal{A}}\left(\mathcal{A}\right)\left(\mathcal{A}\right)\left(\mathcal{A}\right)\left(\mathcal{A}\right)\left(\mathcal{A}\right)\left(\mathcal{A}\right)\left(\mathcal{A}\right)\left(\mathcal{A}\right)\left(\mathcal{A}\right)\left(\mathcal{A}\right)\left(\mathcal{A}\right)\left(\mathcal{A}\right)\left(\mathcal{A}\right)\left(\mathcal{A}\right)\left(\mathcal{A}\right)\left(\mathcal{A}\right)\left(\mathcal{A}\right)\left(\mathcal{A}\right)\left(\mathcal{A}\right)\left(\mathcal{A}\right)\left(\mathcal{A}\right)\left(\mathcal{A}\right)\left$
$\rightarrow$ Some
$\alpha_{\rm{max}}=1$
JUDGE $23/6/1992$ .
$\mathcal{L} = \mathcal{L} \mathcal{L}$
$\cdot$ $\cdot$ $\cdot$ $\cdot$
$\left\langle \frac{1}{2} \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}^2}{\partial \mathcal{L}^2} \right\rangle_{\mathcal{L}^2} = \frac{1}{2} \left( \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}^2}{\partial \mathcal{L}^2} \right)_{\mathcal{L}^2}$
$\mathcal{H}^{\mathcal{A}}\subset\mathcal{H}^{\mathcal{A}}$
$\ldots\, .$
$\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{A}) = \mathcal{A}(\mathcal{A}) = \mathcal{A}(\mathcal{A})$
$\mathcal{A} = \mathcal{A}$
$\sim$
$\mathcal{L} = \{x_1, x_2, x_3, x_4, x_5, x_6, x_7, x_7, x_7, x_7, x_7, x_7, x_7, x_7, x_7, x_7$
$\mathbb{R}^{n-1}$
$\mathcal{A}(\mathcal{A}) = \mathcal{A}(\mathcal{A})$
$\begin{array}{ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc} \hline & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &$
$\mathcal{L}^{\mathcal{A}} = \mathcal{L}$
$\frac{1}{4}$
**TAX SERVICE**