Uganda Case Law

Oreng v UMEME Limited (HCT-02-CV-CS-0069-2008)

Oreng v UMEME Limited (HCT-02-CV-CS-0069-2008) [2012] UGHC 434 (1 June 2012)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

HCT-02-CV-CS-0069-2008

Judge

Masalu Musene, J

The court found that the Defendant, UMEME Limited, was negligent in failing to respond to reports of a sparking and dangerous electric wire, which subsequently broke and caused a fire that injured the Plaintiff and destroyed his property. The Defendant's own witness admitted the wire broke and caused the fire. The court rejected the Defendant's argument that the Plaintiff was contributorily negligent for living in a prohibited area, noting that the Defendant took no action to enforce the law or warn residents. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was applied, shifting the burden to the Defendant…

Source excerpt

• Negligence
• Res Ipsa Loquitur
• Contributory Negligence
• Damages Assessment
• Electricity Infrastructure Liability

Patel and Another v Brigadier-General Lewin

Patel and Another v Brigadier-General Lewin (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 194.3) [1943] EACA 6 (1 January 1943)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 2 of 194.3

Judge

Sheridan CJ, Webb CJ, Whitley CJ

The Court of Appeal held that a lorry on the wrong side of the road, without explanation, justified a prima facie finding of negligence and dismissed the appeal.

• Road Traffic Accidents
• Negligence
• Res Ipsa Loquitur
• Statutory Duty Of Care
• Res-ipsa-loquitur
• Road-traffic-accidents

Mash East Africa (Ltd) Vs Road Tainers Mombasa (Ltd)

Mash East Africa (Ltd) Vs Road Tainers Mombasa (Ltd) (CIVIL SUIT NO. 20 OF 2016) [2019] UGHCCD 182 (5 September 2019)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

CIVIL SUIT NO. 20 OF 2016

Judge

Luswata, J

The court found that the defendant's driver was negligent by driving on the wrong side of the road and causing a collision with the plaintiff's bus. The evidence, including witness testimony and police reports, established that the driver was acting within the course of his employment, making the defendant vicariously liable. The defendant failed to rebut the presumption of negligence or provide any explanation for the accident. The plaintiff proved special damages for repairs, towing, assessment, and lost revenue, and was entitled to general damages for inconvenience and loss of business. Th…

Source excerpt

• Negligence Motor Accident
• Vicarious Liability
• Damages Assessment
• Burden Of Proof
• Res Ipsa Loquitur