Kambale v Tiba Oil Co. Limited (Civil Suit 24 of 2021) [2024] UGHC 810 (29 August 2024)

5

S.

## THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

# IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT ARUA

### CIVIL SUIT NO. 0024 OF 2021

# KAMBALE SYALANDIRE MOISE....................................

#### **VERSUS**

TIBA OIL CO. LTD:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 10

# BEFORE HON. JUSTICE COLLINS ACELLAM

#### **JUDGMENT**

### **Background**

The plaintiff filed a case against the defendant who is alleged to be vicariously liable for the accident involving motor vehicle No. 0887AA07/0888AA07, a Mercedes Benz with its trailer model No. 15 KCN009Q. It is said that in 2021, the said vehicle was hired by Petro Maisha from Congo to go and transport its fuel from kenya to DRC with 42,000 liters of fuel in it. It arrived at Goli custom boarder post on the 12/8/2021 around 9.00pm and parked while waiting for clearance to cross to Congo, while the driver was in the car, he was woken up by someone who requested him either

- water or fire extinguisher to help him because his vehicle had caught fire and this vehicle that caught 20 ire was parked directly behind the plaintiff's vehicle with both vehicles carrying fuel. That when the fire intensified and could not be contained, the driver of the defendant detached the head of the defendant's vehicle and drove it across to CONGO in fear of the fire as well. The plaintiff's driver also tried to drive his vehicle away but the starting system was old type that needed air pumped into - it, time was not on his side, the fire got worse, burnt the plaintiff's vehicle completely beyond repair 25 and also spread to other houses and burnt them. The plaintiff now prays to this honorable court to grant special and general damages, interests and costs of the suit for negligence of the defendant's driver that caused the fire which burnt down the plaintiff's vehicle.

The defendant in their defence did not make any specific answer to the plaint and rather made technical denials contending that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action against them either 30 in law or fact; the defendant cannot be held vicariously liable for actions of the driver as the suit has been filed against the wrong defendant and should henceforth be dismissed. The defendant contends that the truck did not catch fire as a result of a brake jam as alleged and the fire not due to the negligence of defendant's driver but an act of no one's fault.

#### 35 **Representation**

During the trial, the plaintiff was represented by Counsel Donge Opar of Donge & Co. Advocates whereas the defendant was represented by Counsel Okong Innocent from KOB Advocates & **Solicitors**

Counsel for both parties filed their written submissions as directed by court. I have carefully read and considered the pleadings, evidence and submissions of both parties and the following are the 40 issues for determination.

$\mathbf{1}$

#### $\mathsf{S}$ **ISSUES**

- 1. Whether the plaintiff's motor vehicle Mercedes Benz No. 0887AA07/0888AA07 was burnt at Goli Custom Post on the 12/8/2021 by fire emanating from the defendant's motor vehicle No. KCN009Q. - Whether the said fire and burning of the plaintiff's vehicle was caused by the negligence $2.$ of the defendant's motor vehicle driver. - 3. Whether the defendant is vicariously liable for the acts of the said driver - 4. Whether there any remedies available.

#### **Resolution**

Whether the plaintiff's motor vehicle Mercedes Benz No. 0887AA07/0888AA07 was burnt at Goli Custom Post on the 12/8/2021 by fire emanating from the defendant's motor vehicle No. 15 KCN009Q

### **Burden of Proof**

The general rule is that the burden of proof lies on the party who assents the affirmative of the issue/ questions in a dispute. See; Sebanakita Godfrey Vs Fuelex (u) ltd CA No.4/2016. Section

101of the Evidence Act Cap 6 provides that the burden of proof is on whoever desires any court 20 to give judgement as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he or she asserts must prove that those facts exist.

### **Standard of Proof**

The standard of proof in civil cases is on a balance of probability. In the case of Oketch P. Wilson vs Odong Ballam CA No. 0010/2014, it was stated that, the standard of proof in civil matters is on 25 a balance of probabilities and isn't on the standard of beyond reasonable doubt as is in the case for criminal matters.

It is trite principle that the law of evidence is premised on proof of alleged facts. It is a means from which an inference can logically be made as to the existence of a fact. In other words, evidence is the demonstration of a fact; it signifies that which demonstrates, makes clear, or ascertains the truth of the very fact or point in issue, either on the one side or on the other

### **Analysis of evidence**

It's the testimony of PW2, Inspector of Police, Mungu Achiel Michael wherein he states under paragraph 5 of his witness statement that when he arrived at the scene at Goli, he found the trailer 35 of a tanker lorry No. KCN 009Q and motor vehicle No. 0887AA07/0888AA07 burning and the fire had spread very fast and was also burning nearby buildings, kiosk and mini bus etc. He adds under paragraph 9 of his Witness statement that as per his investigation on the vehicles

physically and on information from other people, he discovered that the cause of the accident was friction from the rear tyre of the motor vehicle No. KCN 009Q which had come and parked behind 40 the trailer No. 0887AA07/0888AA07.

- PEX5 tendered in as plaintiff's evidence of incident report which gave ground report of the two $\mathsf{S}$ trailers Reg. No KCN 009Q whose head was detached and crossed to DRC for safety and motor Vehicle, however motor vehicle REG NO. 0887AA07/0888AA07 belonging to Kambale Syalandira Moise, one minibus coater all heading to DRC were severely destroyed by fire. - In corroboration of the above testimony, PW4, Omirambe Innocent testified under paragraph 4,7 and 8 that he saw fire burning from the left rear tyres of a tanker vehicle No. KCN 019Q which was 10 among other vehicles parked by the road side and he saw a turn man of that vehicle trying to put fire and he joined him in trying to do the same but this could not help , the turn man then started warning other vehicles to move as him and his driver detached the head of the vehicle and drove it to congo and on removing the head, the trailer tilted to one side and loosened the seal for fuel - 15 and fuel starting pouring on the road, catching fire and worsening the situation.

Subsequently, in the process of the fire, Motor vehicle Mercedes Benze No. 0887AA07 with its trailer No. 0888AA07 also caught fire and started burning and this vehicle which subsequently caught fire could not be immediately moved away because it's an old model of a trailer which needed time to start by first pumping air/ pressure into it. He states that eventually this Mercedes Benz got totally

burnt together with the fuel in it in the tanker.

I am not convinced by the defendant's contention that none of the witnesses saw the actual fire start for them to make a determination that it is actually the defendant's motor vehicle that was the cause

of the fire which burnt the plaintiff's motor vehicle. All testimonies of eyewitnesses and 25 investigations clearly give the story line and occurrences at Goli Customs with the defendant's vehicle being the cause of the fire.

Proof here is on balance of probabilities and not beyond shadow of doubt which in my considered opinion has been dispensed by the plaintiff. 30

This Issue therefore is in the affirmative.

Issue 2

Whether the said fire and burning of the plaintiff's vehicle was caused by the negligence of the defendant 's motor vehicle driver.

#### Position of the law on tort of Negligence. 35

Negligence as a tort is the breach of a legal duty to take care which results in damage, undesired by Defendant to the Plaintiff. See Winfield & Jolowicz: Tort, 9thEdition, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 1971. P. 45

According to the decided cases, negligence is based on test of a reasonable man which is the basis of liability. In Blyth Vs. Birmingham Water Works Company (1856) 11 Exch 781 it was stated that;

Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do or doing something that a prudent and a reasonable man would not do.

- The standard of care is that foresight and caution expected by the ordinary man in the circumstances $\mathsf{S}$ of a particular case. A person may not be liable in law for every careless act he does nor for every careless act done that cause damage. He will only be liable in negligence if he is under a legal duty to take care. - In negligence, the breach of duty is the chief ingredient of the tort followed by damage to the 10 Plaintiff. In order for the Plaintiff to succeed it must be established first that the circumstances in which his damage was caused were capable of giving rise to a duty of care and secondly that the Defendant actually owed a duty to him.

In order for the Plaintiff to have a cause of action he must prove the following;

- 15 A legal duty on the part of A towards B to exercise care in such conduct of A as falls with the $a)$ scope of the duty i.e that the circumstances in which his damage was caused were capable of giving rise to a duty of care and the defendant actually owed him a duty. - $b)$ Breach of that duty. - $c)$ Consequential damage to B;

We shall proceed to analyze and evaluate evidence in respect of the above elements.

### Duty to take care

It is generally stated that negligence is not actionable unless the duty to be careful exists. The duty to be careful only exists where the wisdom of our ancestors had decreed that it shall exist.<sup>1</sup> The first 25 attempt to formulate a principle was made by Lord Esher (then Brett M. R) in Heaven Vs Pender 1883, 11 QBD 503

"Where he stated that "that cases established that, under certain circumstances, one man may owe a duty to another, even though there is no contract between them. If one man is near to another, or is near the property of another, a duty lies upon him not to do that which may cause a personal injury to that other, or may injure his property".

The most famous and most important generalization is that of Lord Aitkin in Donoghue Vs Stevenson (1932) AC 502. Where Lord Atkin said that in 35

> "English law there must be, and is, some general conception of relations giving rise to a duty of care, of which the particular cases found in the books are but instances ................ The rule that you are to love your neighbor becomes, in law, you must not injure your neighbor and the lawyer's question is who is my neighbor? This receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbor. Who then, in law is my neighbor? The answer seems to be persons who are so closely and directly affected by my acts that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplations as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question".

$20$

#### 5 Evaluation of evidence

The question here is whether the Defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff.

DW1 testified I paragraph 2 and 8 of his witness statement that the fire was a result of the brake jam and axle bearings due to friction between the tyres. He states that Vehicle had been parked at Goli 150 meters away from Goli URA office.

PW2 in his investigation discovered that the cause of fire was friction on the rear tyres of vehicle 10 REG. No. KCN 009O.

We cannot ignore the testimony of PW4 where he states under paragraph 4 to 8 that he found a turn man of that vehicle trying to put off the fire and he joined him , he left and started looking for a fire extinguisher and more water but failed to find any, the same fire intensified and that's when

he and the co-driver detached the head of vehicle which was burning and drove to Congo causing 15 a tilt of the trailer which led to loosened seal for fuel, the fuel poured down and worsened the situation and subsequently led to the burning of the plaintiff's vehicle.

The above was corroborated by the testimony of the driver, Onen Rujeba Pier who states under paragraph 4 that at around 2:00am of the 13<sup>th</sup> August, 2021, he was woken up by a loud knock on his vehicle door by someone who requested him to assist with a fire extinguisher or water. 20 When he failed to get the fire extinguisher or water, it's when he returned and told him to take off because his vehicle had caught fire, he went off to his vehicle, detached the head of the trailer, the trailer tilted to one side loosening the fuel valve on the tanker thereby spilling fuel.

In my considered opinion, I believe every mode of transport such as transportation of fuel in long distances have safety precautions that ought to be adhered too before one embarks on long 25 distance transportation business. For one to claim an act occurred without anybody's fault, he must have observed all that which is reasonable to man as a moral and legal duty.

There are several safety precautions laid down by Xiame Sunsky Vehicle Co. Ltd who are experts in transportation of refined oil and specialty in exporting trailers. I shall list a few of them;

#### a) Installation of Explosion-proof camera on the fuel tank truck 30

It is necessary to monitor the fuel tanker truck transporting refined oil. The fuel tank truck ought to be equipped with explosion-proof camera and connected with the alarm system. Once an accident occurs, the driver can immediately sound the alarm and call the police. Deal with it in time to minimize the damage.

#### 35 b) Pay attention to electrostatic accumulation

The amount of oil in the oil tank should be appropriate: the oil in the oil tank is too little, the shaking space in the transportation is large, and it is easy to produce static electricity. Too much, it is easy to overflow the tank truck with lax sealing of the oil tank mouth, so the filling amount is appropriate at about 85%. In addition, the transportation should be maintained at medium speed to ensure that the oil in the tank is relatively stable, but also to minimize emergency braking. To connect the electrostatic wire, ensure that the electrostatic wire and the ground contact.

#### To avoid the fuel tank engine temperature is too high $c)$

In hot weather, the technical condition of the tank truck should be checked frequently, and the safety parts of the vehicle should be inspected. Driving vehicles in hot weather, should always pay attention to the change of water temperature meter, generally not more than 95°C, especially when the vehicle is loaded or driving on the mountain road, but also pay attention to prevent engine overheating. If the temperature is too high, it is necessary to choose a cool place to stop in time to cool down, and the engine cover can be lifted for ventilation and heat dissipation. After the temperature is lowered, check whether the engine cooling system is short of water and the cause of high temperature.

### d) Pay attention to tire temperature when driving a fuel tanker truck

Hot weather driving should not be too long, should be every two hours or after a journey, the 15 appropriate parking rest at the same time check the tire temperature. When the tire pressure is found rise due to overheating, should try to park the diesel oil truck in the shade or shade, let the tire natural cooling, pressure, cannot be used to deflate or splashing cold water method to reduce the tire pressure and temperature. In addition, summer driving should try to avoid emergency braking, 20 vehicle overload is strictly prohibited.

### e) To prevent a flat tire

In hot weather, the road surface temperature is often above 70°C, such as tanker tires in high temperature road driving for a long time, the pressure in the tire increases, at this time if the tire is damaged or weak, it is easy to explode. Therefore, care should be taken to maintain the specified tire pressure in hot weather. High temperature and hot, especially in the midday, should be appropriate to reduce the speed of the truck. The tank truck should be equipped with effective fire extinguishing equipment to protect in times of fire outbreak.

My Neighbor principle of one must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee and would be likely to injure a neighbor and a neighbor being persons who are so closely and directly affected by one's acts that one ought to reasonably to have them in contemplations as being so affected when he 30 / she is directing his or her mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question **ought to be put into** consideration.

I must re-echo that the driver of the defendant did not have any of the above necessary safety precaution tools such as fire extinguisher. He went on begging from other vehicles without 35 necessarily informing them upfront about the prevailing occurrence. Any reasonable driver in this line of business of transportation would have foreseen the risks likely occurrence, secondly, he should have warned the neighbors had it had an installed alarm system in existence, first sound would have woken up more rescuers and other drivers would have driven off, I so believe, thirdly, 40 to make matters worse, to save itself, he detached the head of the vehicle without care of the repercussion that would occur in quick detachment and drove off without appearing to report the matter to the concerned authorities, no calls were made by them, properties were damaged all because of the negligence and careless approach of the driver.

$25$ I have read the defendant's argument which are barely blunt with no excuse as to absence of the necessary emergency tools yet they purport to specialize in fuel transportation from Kenya to DRC. Accordingly, subject to above analysis, the defendant's driver owed a duty of care to the plaintiff.

- Having established that the Defendant owes a duty of care to the Plaintiff, the second step is to 10 establish is if the Defendant breached a duty of care. It has been stated that negligence is a conduct falling below the standard demanded for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm. It is important to note that the standard required of the Defendant is an objective one; it depends on the standard of care which would have been adopted by the reasonable man in the circumstances. - 15

$\mathsf{S}$

The test for deciding whether there has been a breach of duty is laid down in the dictum of Alderson B., in Blyth Vs. Birmingham Water Works Company (1842) 10 M & W 109 that;

"negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do or doing something that a prudent and a reasonable man would not have done.

In this case, it's foreseeable that being a long-distance drive and the substance of transportation which in this case is fuel, there is need to possess whatever tools/ equipment required to minimize risks involved in this line of business, had a fire extinguisher been present, when the fire started from the tyres, maybe, it would have been put out before escalation.

Subsequently, the defendant's motor vehicle driver owed a duty of care to the plaintiff which duty 25 was breached.

The second issue is there for answered in the affirmative.

### <u>Issue three</u>

# Whether the defendant is vicariously liable for the acts of the said driver

#### 30 Position of the law

Vicarious liability is defined as liability that a supervisory party (such as an employer) bears for the actionable conduct of a subordinate (such as employee) based on the relationship between the two parties. 1Furthermore, it was held in Muwonge v. Attorney General [1967] 1 EA 17 that an act may be done in the course of a servant's employment so as to make the master liable even though it is

done contrary to the orders of the master; and even if the servant is acting deliberately, wantonly, 35 negligently or criminally, or for his own benefit, nevertheless if what he did is merely a manner of carrying out what he was employed to carry out then his master is liable. The justification for this law I that the employer is in control of the behavior of their employee. The

doctrine is justified on a moral basis as the employee inflicts loss on the claimant while pursuing the employer's business interests. As the employer obtains a benefit from the employee's work, they

40 should also bear the costs of accidents arising out of it. See Law of Tort by JOHN COOKE, 8<sup>th</sup> Edition at page 462.

Therefore, the ingredients for vicarious liability as laid down in the case of Muwonge (supra) are: $\mathsf{S}$ (i) The existence of an employer-employee or master-servant relationship.

(ii) The tort must have been committed during the course of the employee's or servant's work.

- In light of the facts DW1, an operations and logistic s Manager contends under paragraph 4 that their driver managed to save the tractor head and some fuel that was in their truck No. KCN 019F - which amounted to approximately 9,000 liters. 10

The operation Manager does not deny the pre-exiting relationship between the company and the company. This means that there is a pre-existing contract of services between Tiba Oil Company and the driver. The first ingredient is therefore satisfied.

- In respect to the second ingredient, the question is whether the driver committed the tort during the course of employment. DW1 states under paragraph of his witness statement that on the 13<sup>th</sup> 15 August 2021, their company Motor vehicle no. KCN019QZF 7830 caught fire. This means the driver's journey was directed and was acting in the course of employment. the defendant does not deny that position but majorly denies the driver's liability. The second ingredient is therefore - Having satisfied all the ingredients, this issue is therefore answered in the affirmative. The Defendant 20 is vicariously liable for he negligent actions of its driver.

# **ISSUE 4**

# Whether there any remedies available?

### 25 **Special damages**

Counsel for the plaintiff prayed for a total sum of $514,920,000/$ = as special damages in respect to value of the motor vehicle No.00887AA07/08888AA07 (336,395,000/=), fuel carried value (88,525,000/=), surcharges for day and night parking (5,000,000/=), loss of business $(35,000,000/=), legal business (50,000,000/=).$

The guiding principle relating to special damages was settled in the case of Bonham Carter Vs Hyde 30 Park Hotel ltd (1984) wherein court held that special damages must be specifically pleaded and

However, the case of Byekwaso Vs Mohammed [1973] HCD 20 enunciates that as long as there is sufficient proof of the loss actually sustained which is either a direct consequence of the Defendant's action / omission or such a consequence as a reasonable man would have contemplated, this would

suffice in place of physical and or/documentary evidence

Value of the motor vehicle No.00887AA07/08888AA07 (336,395,000/=)

The plaintiff prayed for the value of the vehicle which was burnt with an equivalent value of \$ 90,000 or UGX. 336,395,000/=. The plaintiff showed the agreement for purchase of the vehicle at

\$ 90,000. For one to be entitled to compensation, they must have a cause of action against the $\mathsf{S}$ Defendant.

It was established in the case of Auto Garage &another Vs Motokov (No. 3), 1971, EA 514, that for one to have a cause of action, they must establish and demonstrate a defined right and that the same has been breached and that and that the Defendant is liable. According to my findings in

issues 1,2 and 3 it is already established that indeed the Plaintiff has a cause of action against the 10 Defendant in respect to Negligence.

It is agreed that at all material time the Plaintiff was the owner of and as such the Plaintiff motor vehicle No. 0887AA07/0888AA07and as such enjoyed proprietary rights to the subject matter as the owner. And that the subject vehicle incurred unrepairable damages as a result of the actions of the Defendant's employee in the course of his employment.

I therefore claim that the claim for compensation/ payment of the value of the subject vehicle succeeds.

### Fuel carried value

- The second prayer is for the fuel lost, the plaintiff states that he had about 42,000 liters of petrol. The delivery notes and tax invoice showing the price of fuel in dollars for the same was exhibited as 20 PEX3. The price is given in dollars and converted to Uganda shillings to the total value of Ugx. 88,525,000/=. As discussed above the Plaintiff suffered loss because of the actions of the Defendant's employee's actions. And as such the Plaintiff is entitled to compensation owing to the fact that he has proved this claim to the required standard of balance of probabilities. - I therefore find that indeed the Plaintiff is entitled to compensation and payment for the lost fuel 25 worth $88,525,000/=$ .

### Demurrage

In regards to demurrage or parking charges of Ugx. 5,000,000/=, the Plaintiff's counsel in his pleadings and written submissions averred that the subject vehicle is parked in the custom parking lot and that the custom's parking yard is not free and prayed that the sum of UGX 5,000,000/=be paid to them in that regard.

The Defendant on the other hand did not take any initiative to rebut the prayer in any of their pleadings and submissions.

Relying on the case of Acaye Richard Vs Saracen & 2 others Civil Suit No. 063 of 2011, Counsel for the Plaintiff stated that it is trite law though that strict proof does not always require documentary 35 proof or evidence.

I concur with that position in regards to this matter and I see no reason as to why I should deny this prayer. This claim therefore succeeds.

From the evidence before me, it is evident that demurrage arose solely because the Defendant caused damage to the Plaintiff's motor vehicle. I therefore award 5,000,000 in respect to this. 40

#### $\mathsf{S}$ Loss of business and legal fees

The Plaintiff's counsel in their written submission averred that the Plaintiff was a business man earning profits from his business but because of the Defendant's company's employee's actions of negligence, he was deprived of the same and to that extent counsel prayed that special damages to the tune of UGX 35,000, 000/= for loss of business. This is also the same affirmation in the

- Plaintiff's witness statement under paragraph 20 and this clearly stipulates the extent of loss and 10 inconveniences that this action has caused to the Plaintiff and his business. In addition, counsel contended that because of the actions of the Defendant's employee, the Plaintiff has had to incur expenses in respect to legal services to a tune of UGX 50,000,000/= given the fact that the matter has had to be handled in both Uganda and Congo. - 15 From my findings and analysis above it appears to me that the Plaintiff has strictly pleaded and proved the special damages keeping in my mind that it doesn't have to be only documentary evidence.

I therefore award the Plaintiff special damages to a tune of Ugx 35, 000,000/= in respect to loss of business and in regards to legal services I find it appropriate that these be catered for under the costs

$20$ of the suit.

I therefore find appropriate to award a total of 464,920,000/= as special damages.

## General damages

A plaintiff who suffers damage due to the wrongful act of the defendant must be put in a position he or she should have been in had she or he not suffered wrong. See; Kibimba Rice ltd Vs Umar Salim SCCA of No.17 of 1992.

- General damages are awarded at the discretion of court. They are awarded to compensate the aggrieved fairly for the inconveniences accrued as a result of the actions of the defendant. See: Muhammad Tumusiime v URA Civil Suit NO. 825 The whole process of awarding damages where they are at large is essentially a matter of impression. - The plaintiff testified that the incident has put a halt to his business, of collecting fuel from Kenya 30 to DRC and that he has lost a lot of revenue as he used to transport the fuel to the people in Congo at a profit. In addition, Counsel for the Plaintiff averred in the written submissions that the Plaintiff suffered mental torture and inconveniences.

Taking all these into consideration, I find that an award of general damages of UGX 50,000,000/= 35 is adequate compensation.

# Interest on the special and general damages

Section 26(2) of the Civil Procedure Act Cap71 provides that where insofar the decree is for the payment of money, the court may in the decree, order interest at such rate as the court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged from the date of the suit to the date of the decree......

Taking into account that provision, the award of damages shall attract an annual interest of 10% from the date of judgement until payment in full.

#### $\overline{5}$ Costs

As regards to costs, section 27(1) & (2) of the Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 provides that the costs are awarded at the discretion of court and they must follow the event. Further, a successful party is entitled to costs unless there are good reasons to deny such Party costs and while exercising such discretion, the court must do so judiciously. See Jennifer Behingye, Rwanyindo Aurelia, Paulo

Bagenzi Vs School Out fitters (u)ltd CACA No.53 of 1999 I totally agree with this position and 10 therefore find no obstacle that would make me deny the Plaintiff who is the successful party in this suit costs. I am satisfied that the Plaintiff has proved its claim against the Defendant to the required standard. I accordingly award the Plaintiff the costs in this suit.

For avoidance of any doubt, judgement is entered for the Plaintiff against the Defendant on the following term; 15

- a) Special damages of $UGX$ 464,920,000/= - b) General damages of UGX 50,000000/= - c) Interest on a) and (b) above at a $10\%$ per annum from the date of filing suit till full payment - d) Costs of this Suit

29th day of August 2024 Dated at Arua this ...

$25$

**JUDGE**

30