Download

Uganda Judgment

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Hamala & Another v Okware (Civil Appeal 1 of 1977) [1978] UGCA 15 (27 July 1978)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge relied on a precedent (Koko's case) where the injuries and post-concussional effects were significantly more serious than those suffered by the respondent. The respondent's injuries, while serious, resulted in mild after effects and a minor deformity, but did not amount to serious disabilities. The award of Shs.95,000/- was therefore excessive and based on a wrong principle. The court held that the proper approach is to consider the total effect of all injuries and to be guided by comparable awards in similar cases. Accordingly, the award was reduced to Shs.35,000/- as a fair and reasonable compensation for the injuries sustained.

Court disposition

appeal allowed in part; quantum of damages reduced

Orders

  • General damages awarded to the respondent reduced from Shs.95,000/- to Shs.35,000/-.
  • Judgment and decree amended accordingly.
  • Respondent to pay one-third of the appellant's costs in this appeal.

02

Material facts

Parties

Stanley Hamala

Appellant Counsel: E. S. Kirenga

Charles Kiire

Appellant Counsel: E. S. Kirenga

Lorence Okware

Respondent Counsel: Dr. Nsereko

Amounts and remedies

  • General Damages Awarded (original): UGX 95,000
  • General Damages Awarded (revised): UGX 35,000

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Quantum of Damages

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Counsel for the appellants argued that the damages awarded were manifestly excessive given the nature of the respondent's injuries, which included cerebral concussion and a simple fracture of the right clavicle. He cited comparable cases where awards were significantly lower and submitted that the respondent did not suffer any permanent effects to justify such a high award. He relied on Uganda Cement Industry Ltd. v. Imelda Kawa to argue that the award was based on a wrong principle and should be reduced.
Respondent
Counsel for the respondent conceded that uniformity in assessing damages is important and that comparable awards in earlier cases should guide the court. He agreed that the award in Koko's case, which the trial judge relied on, was too high and out of tune with earlier awards. He accepted that the damages should be reduced from Shs.95,000/- to Shs.50,000/-.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Paolo Cavinato v. Antonio Di Filippo (1957) F.A. 535

    Assessment of general damages should be based on the total effect of all injuries, not by awarding damages for each injury separately.

  2. 02

    Uganda Cement Industry Ltd. v. Imelda Kawa, E.A.C.A. Civil Appeal No.51/75

    Comparable awards in earlier cases should guide the assessment of damages to ensure uniformity and fairness.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge relied on a precedent (Koko's case) where the injuries and post-concussional effects were significantly more serious than those suffered by the respondent. The respondent's injuries, while serious, resulted in mild after effects and a minor deformity, but did not amount to serious disabilities. The award of Shs.95,000/- was therefore excessive and based on a wrong principle. The court held that the proper approach is to consider the total effect of all injuries and to be guided by comparable awards in similar cases. Accordingly, the award was reduced to Shs.35,000/- as a fair and reasonable compensation for the injuries sustained.

Obiter and limits

  • The assessment of general damages should not be split for each injury but should reflect the overall impact on the plaintiff.
  • Uniformity in damages awards is desirable to ensure fairness and predictability in personal injury cases.
  • The trial judge should have indicated the basis for the award for cerebral concussion alone, given the differences in severity compared to the precedent relied upon.

Court disposition

appeal allowed in part; quantum of damages reduced

  • General damages awarded to the respondent reduced from Shs.95,000/- to Shs.35,000/-.
  • Judgment and decree amended accordingly.
  • Respondent to pay one-third of the appellant's costs in this appeal.

Source and reliance status

Court of Appeal of Uganda

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Source document

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Judgment

[1978] UGCA 15

IN THE W3K COURT OF APPEAL FOR UGANDA

AT KAMPALA

(Coram: Saied, C. J., Nyamuchoncho,J. A., Ssekandi, J. A.)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.l OF 1977

BETWEEN

STANLEY HAMALA) CHARLES KIIRE ) .......... .. APPELLANTS

A N D

LORENCE OKWARE RESPONDENT

(Appeal from the decision of the High Court of Uganda at Kampala (Butagira,J.) dated 23rd day of December, 1976

in

Civil Suit No. 186 of 1975

Between

Lorence Okware ........... Plaintiff

and

Stanley Hamala . Defendants Charles Kiire )

JUDGMENT OF COURT

NYAMUCHONCHO, J. A,

This is an appeal against the quantum of damages. On the 24th December, 1974, the respondent was involved in a motor accident. He was travelling in the appellant's motor vehicle which overturned due to the negligent driving of the appellant's driver. The respondent sustained severe personal injuries, two of which were more serious. These were (.1) cerebral concussion and (2) simple fracture of the right clavicle. At the trial, liability was admitted. The only issue was the assessment of damages. By consent the medical report (exh. P.l) was put in. No evidence was led.

At the trial Mr. Orach, for the respondent, submitted that the respondent should be awarded Shs.100,000/- general damages.

He did not refer to any case. Mr. Kirenga, for the appellant, submitted that the plaintiff sustained two major injuries,cerebral concussion and fracture of the clavicle, that according to comparable awards for concussion such as Charles Nansera and Another -vs- Kasule, HCCS No.616/70, and Mariam Mukanyiginya Nalongo -vs- Fabiano Byewera, HCCS No.864/75 and comparable awards for fracture of clavicle, such as Veroneka Nakalule -vs- Juvenile Tindyebwa, HCCS No.70/6% a sum of Shs.20,000/- would be adequate compensation. The learned trial judge, after considering the awards in the cases referred to him and such other cases like Sirasi Kazungu -vs- Wilson Kigugu, HCCS No.949/71 in which the plaintiff was warded Shs.5,000/- for concussion, and Paskali Lugayo -vs- Akaya Mabirizi, HCCS No.589/72, in which the plaintiff was awarded Shs.7,000/- for dizziness, awarded the respondent Shs.95,000/- general damages. He relied heavily on Lawrence Koko -vs- Stanley Tamake 8g Charles Kiire, HCCS No.185/75, his own case which arose out of the same accident.

r

The appellant, represented by Mr. Kirenga, has challenged the quantum of damages. He said that they were too high for the type of injuries which the respondent sustained. He again referred to Nansera1s and Nalongo's cases (supra) and the case of Major John B. Kamushana and 2 Others -vs- Swaleh Lwanga and Another, HCCS No.1404/75- In this case, the third plaintif, Namala Kamushana, a baby of three months, who sustained a closed fracture on the left clavicle which maliunited, was awarded Shs.4,000/-. He also cited the cr.se of Veroneka Nakalule (supra) where the plaintiff was awarded Shs.7,000/- for headaches and dizziness. He submitted that the respondent has not suffered any permanent effect as a result of the cerebral concussion to deserve such a high award. Relying on Uganda Cement Industry Ltd. —vs— Imelda Kawa, E. A. C. A. Civil Appeal No.51/75, he submitted that the award of Shs.95,000/- in this case was based on a wrong principle and is manifestly excessive. It should be reduced to

Dr. Msereko, for the respondent, agreed that uniformity in assessing damages is needed and that comparable awards in earlier cases would be a good guide. He said that the award in Koko's case was too high and out of tune with earlier awards. He conceded that the damages in this case should be reduced from Shs.95,000/- to Shs.50,000/-.

- 3 -

The respondent sustained several injuries in the accident. He recovered from those injuries. The after effects of the cerebral concussion are mild. The fracture united well leaving only a deformity at the site of the union of the fracture. This is unsightly. There is some weakening of the right shoulder girdle. This is likely to remain with him for a long time.

These effects are not serious disabilities. The post concussional effects in Koko1s case, on which the learned trial judge relied, were much more serious than in this case. There the plaintiff suffered from bouts of consussion and forgetfulness and headaches. He got easily tired after standing, and occasionally had disturbance of vision. There was a change in his behaviour. Besides, the plaintiff suffered two fractures of the pelvis and had abrasions on the supra-scapula region and right forearm. I think this case was not a good guide. The learned trial judge, moreover, did not indicate how much he would have awarded for cerebral concussion alone. I am not suggesting that he should have awarded damages for each injury since the assessment of general damages should be by a single assessment arrived at by considering the total effect of all the injuries. See Paolo Cavinato -vs-Antonio Di Filippo, (1957) F. A, 535- I am of the view that the plaintiff's disabilities, pain and suffering in this case were not such as to warrant the award of Shs.95,000/- as general damages. This award was based on wrong principle and is excessive. On the other hand, <sup>I</sup> think that the amount of Shs.25,000/- suggested by Mr. Kirenga is too low. I have formed the view that the proper award would be Shs.35,000/-.

I would accordingly allow this appeal to the extent of reducing the general damages awarded to him from Shs.95,000/ to Shs.55,000/-. The judgment and decree appealed from should be amended accordingly. The respondent shall pay one-third of the appellant's costs in this appeal.

DATED at Kampala this 27th day of July,1978.

(Py Nyamuchoncho) //JUSTICE OF APPEAL

4 *\**

Mr. E. S. Kirenga for the appellant. Dr. Nsereko for the respondent.

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Charles Nansera and Another v. Kasule, HCCS No.616/70

Case cited

Mariam Mukanyiginya Nalongo v. Fabiano Byewera, HCCS No.864/75

Case cited

Veroneka Nakalule v. Juvenile Tindyebwa, HCCS No.70/69

Case cited

Sirasi Kazungu v. Wilson Kigugu, HCCS No.949/71

Case cited

Paskali Lugayo v. Akaya Mabirizi, HCCS No.589/72

Case cited

Lawrence Koko v. Stanley Tamake & Charles Kiire, HCCS No.185/75

Case cited

Major John B. Kamushana and 2 Others v. Swaleh Lwanga and Another, HCCS No.1404/75

Case cited

Uganda Cement Industry Ltd. v. Imelda Kawa, E.A.C.A. Civil Appeal No.51/75

Case cited

Paolo Cavinato v. Antonio Di Filippo (1957) F.A. 535

Case cited

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this JurisAssist collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.