Uganda Case Law

Grunenthal GMBH and Others v Mugisha (consolidated miscellenous application 25 of 2023; Miscellaneous Application 559 of 2022)

Grunenthal GMBH and Others v Mugisha (consolidated miscellenous application 25 of 2023; Miscellaneous Application 559 of 2022) [2024] UGHCCD 35 (26 February 2024)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

consolidated miscellenous application 25 of 2023 ; Miscellaneous Application 559 of 2022

Judge

Boniface Wamala, J

The High Court held that a personal-injury suit over alleged thalidomide injuries was time-barred and dismissed the consolidated applications with costs.

• Limitation Periods
• Personal Injury
• Negligence
• Product Liability
• Limitation-periods
• Personal-injury

Kabei v Kidawalime Bakery Limited

Kabei v Kidawalime Bakery Limited (Civil Suit 154 of 2020) [2023] UGHCCD 415 (12 April 2023)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Civil Suit 154 of 2020

Judge

Baguma, J

The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the bread was unfit for human consumption at the time it left the defendant's factory. There was no expert or medical evidence to establish the bread's condition or any injury suffered. The plaintiff also failed to link the bread to the defendant, as he bought it from a retailer and not directly from the defendant's factory, and the defendant's witnesses denied ownership. The absence of evidence connecting the bread to the defendant and the lack of expert analysis or medical report were fatal to the plaint…

Source excerpt

• Negligence
• Product Liability
• Burden Of Proof

Sendi v Crown Beverages Ltd

Sendi v Crown Beverages Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2002) [2004] UGCA 43 (8 October 2004)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2002

Judge

Mpagi-Bahigeine, JA, Engwau, JA, Kitumba, JA

The Court of Appeal found that the appellant established a prima facie case that the Mirinda-Fruity soda was contaminated when it left the respondent's factory, as the evidence of contamination was not controverted by the respondent. The court held that the respondent, as manufacturer, owed a duty of care to the appellant as a consumer, and the presence of foreign substances in two bottles indicated a breach of that duty. Although the appellant failed to prove that the consumption of the soda caused permanent impotence, he did prove that he suffered pain, vomiting, and diarrhea after consumin…

Source excerpt

• Product Liability
• Negligence
• Duty Of Care
• Consumer Protection

Ssendi v Crown Beverages Ltd

Ssendi v Crown Beverages Ltd (CIVIL SUIT NO. 345 OF 1998) [2001] UGHC 119 (27 November 2001)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

CIVIL SUIT NO. 345 OF 1998

Judge

Tinyinondi, J

The High Court dismissed a negligence claim over allegedly contaminated Mirinda soda, finding no proof the defect existed when the drink left the factory.

• Product Liability
• Negligence
• Duty Of Care
• Personal Injury
• Product-liability
• Personal-injury