Kampala, Uganda.
Hon. Justice Ssekana Musa delivered his judgment to settle a rather age old case at the High Court of Uganda at Kampala in a civil suit filed by Nasif Mujib and Abdul Hamid Mujib against the Attorney General. The plaintiffs sought damages for the destruction of their commercial building caused by a government-owned vehicle driven by an army officer. After years of legal proceedings, court delivered its decision on the issue of vicarious liability.
The incident occurred on January 13, 2009, when an unregistered vehicle, belonging to the Ministry of Defence and driven by Lt. Mutai Chemondosi, crashed into the plaintiffs’ building in Bombo Town Council. The plaintiffs’ attorney reported the matter to Bombo Police station, and it was established that the vehicle indeed belonged to the government. However, the defendant denied liability, arguing that the vehicle was not registered and therefore not government-owned.
The plaintiffs argued that the defendant should be held vicariously liable for the actions of their employee, who was driving the vehicle in the course of his employment. The defendant, while admitting liability, proposed a settlement amount that the plaintiffs deemed insufficient. The court proceeded with the case as the parties failed to agree on the compensation amount.
After careful analysis, the court ruled that the defendant is indeed vicariously liable for the negligent actions of its employee. However, the plaintiffs’ claim for special damages, which included various expenses and anticipated costs, was deemed inaccurate and speculative. Special damages must be proven strictly and supported by actual expenditures incurred. As such, the court disallowed the claimed special damages.
Regarding general damages, the court emphasized the principle of restitution and aimed to restore the plaintiffs to their original position. The plaintiffs’ failure to mitigate their loss and neglect in repairing the building since 2009 led to a reduction in the amount of compensation awarded. In the end, the court awarded the plaintiffs a sum of 70,000,000/= as general damages, along with an interest rate of 20% per annum from the date of the judgment. The plaintiffs were also granted costs of the suit.
