Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Uganda decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Mukhaye & Another v Kinyajui & 2 Others (Civil Suit 47 of 2021) [2025] UGHC 299 (19 May 2025)
The High Court of Uganda held the first defendant negligent in a fatal road accident and found the second defendant vicariously liable, awarding damages and costs.
Aryemo & Another v Zongmei Engineering Group Limited & Another (Civil Suit 46 of 2018) [2024] UGHC 150 (8 April 2024)
The court found that the 2nd Defendant owed Otto Patrick a duty of care as a fellow road user and breached that duty by failing to stop or avoid the motorcycle, resulting in a fatal collision. The evidence, including eyewitness testimony and inspection reports, supported the Plaintiffs' account of negligent driving. The Defendants failed to adduce credible evidence to rebut the Plaintiffs' case, and contradictions raised were minor and did not undermine the core facts. The 2nd Defendant was acting in the course of employment, making the 1st Defendant vicariously liable. The Plaintiffs proved…
Source excerpt
Kawalya Aloysious V Sendagire Norman (HCCS No. 162 of 2006) (HCCS No. 162 of 2006) [2009] UGHC 69 (5 February 2009)
The court found that the deceased, K. Bishagenda, was killed in a road accident on 27th June 2002 as a result of the negligence of the 2nd defendant's driver, who was driving at excessive speed and overtook without due regard for other road users. The evidence, including the plaintiff's testimony, post mortem, and police reports, was unchallenged and established the facts on a balance of probabilities. The beneficiaries listed in the plaint, being family members as defined by law, were entitled to relief. The court applied the dependency calculation method from Agnes Masane v Uganda Transport…
Source excerpt
Kalubala v Transocean (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal 22 of 1999) [1999] UGCA 49 (21 October 1999)
The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in refusing to award general damages to the dependants after finding liability established, as the dependants were named in the plaint and evidence indicated their presence in court. The court found that technicalities regarding the physical production of dependants should not defeat substantive justice where their particulars are provided and unchallenged. The appellant, however, failed to prove his own dependency, as he was not named as a dependant and evidence showed he was a business partner rather than a dependant of the deceased. On vi…
Source excerpt
Kalubala v Transocean Uganda Limited (Civil Appeal 22 of 99) [1999] UGCA 39 (21 October 1999)
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in denying damages to the dependants on the ground that they were not produced in court, as their particulars were provided and evidence indicated their presence. The court held that the dependants should have been awarded general damages for lost dependency, calculated using a realistic multiplier of three years based on the deceased's age and expected working life. The appellant was not entitled to damages as a dependant, having failed to prove his own dependency. Special damages for funeral expenses were awarded despite the absence of re…
Source excerpt
Selvano Asaba and Another vs Virginia Balisanga (Civil Appeal No 48 of 1997) [1998] UGCA 10 (29 November 1998)
The Court of Appeal upheld a Shs. 6,938,000 award for loss of dependency after a fatal motor accident, rejecting arguments that the damages were excessive.
Okecho Obbo v Okuna & 2 Ors (H.C.C.S. MT. 6/93) [1995] UGHCCD 5 (30 October 1995)
Fatal accident claim: the High Court found both drivers negligent, apportioned liability 30/70, and awarded the widow and dependants UGX 21,808,000 plus interest and costs.
Zzizinga and Another v Uganda Commercial Bank (Civil Suit 3 of 1990) [1992] UGHCCD 113 (24 January 1992)
The court held that the action by the first plaintiff, George Zizzinga, was time-barred as it was filed more than 12 months after the cause of action arose, contrary to section 2(1)(d) of the Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1969. The statutory notice served within the limitation period did not extend the time for filing suit, as statutory notice is not part of court proceedings. However, the minor plaintiffs, suing through their next friend, were entitled to the disability exemption under section 4 of the same Act, allowing them to file suit within 12 months aft…
Source excerpt
Gatere v Lennan and Others (Civil Cases Nos. 917 and 992 of 1949) [1951] EACA 339 (1 January 1951)
The court dismissed fatal accident claims after finding that an unlit motor cycle, not the defendant driver, was the primary and effective cause of the night collision.
