Court name
High Court of Uganda
Case number
Civil Suit 1149 of 1978
Judgment date
7 June 1995

Lubayon Nsubuga & 2 Ors v Attorney General (Civil Suit 1149 of 1978) [1995] UGHC 16 (07 June 1995);

Cite this case
[1995] UGHC 16


CIVIL SUIT NO.1149 OF 1978


The Plaintiff’s claim against both defendants are for general and special Damages for personal injuries arising out of a Meter accident which occurred on or about the 15th day of June 1978 along Hoima/Kampala road involving a lorry registration No. UWL.047 and a Land Rover of Registration No. UP 0134 which was allegedly traveling from the opposite direction. The Plaintiff alleged in paragraph 4 of their plaint that:-
“The Plaintiffs aver that the said accident was caused solely by the negligence of the defendants’ said servants/drivers or Agents and hold the defendants liable therefore.”
The particulars of the alleged negligence were given. The plaintiffs further alleged that as a result of that accident, the 3rd plaintiff who was lawfully walking along the side of the road and the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs who were passengers on M/V No. UWL 047 suffered personal 25 injuries. Particulars of the injuries were listed down. The Plaintiffs also alleged that resulting from that accident the plaintiffs incurred financial losses (special damages) to the tune of shs.1520/= consequently they claim General and special damages as stated above 30 interest on the decretal amount at the rate of 10% and cost of the suit.
In their W.S.D both defendants denied that their respective Servants were negligent arid therefore denied liability. When the suit was called for hearing, no representative of the 2nd Defendant appeared but there was evidence of due Service on the 2nd Defendant as show by affidavit of service of James B. Nkonge of M/s Nsambu and Co. Advocates dated 24/9/93. As there was no explanation for the absence, I allowed the hearing to proceed in the absence of the 2nd Defendant. The following four issues were framed at the commencement of the hearing:-
(1) Whether the defendants servants/Agents were negligent and to what extent.
(2) Whether the plaintiffs suffered any injuries as a result of the accident.
(3) If so whether the defendants are liable.
(4) If so what is the quantum of damages.
Only the plaintiff’s No. 1 and. 2 testified and called one common witness. The 3rd plaintiff abandoned the case. The case was then closed for submission of counsels. The 1st defendant who participated in the trial did not call any evidence.
On the let issues whether the defendant’s servants/Agents were negligent and to what extent, Ms. Musoke counsel for the Attorney General submitted that the let defendant a servant, the driver of M/V UP 0134 was not negligent. She pointed out that the evidence of both PW1 and PW2 indicated that before the accident, the driver of the lorry of Registration No. UWL 047 on which they were passenger had stopped at some point in the course of their journey and went out for 30 minutes and that when he returned, he was smelling alcohol and started to drive fast and in the middle of the road. Counsel submitted that there was no evidence of the driver of UP 0134 driving at the time under the influence of alcohol.
However, Ms. Musoke invited court not be believe these two witnesses on how the accident happened because they collaborated to tell lie on that point. She pointed out that the