Musiima v Owodyo Limited (Civil Suit 257 of 1983) [1993] UGHC 62 (2 September 1993)

Full Case Text

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

## CIVIL SUIT NO. 257 OF 1983

R. MUSIIMA SSEMPALA :::::::::::::::::::::::: PLAINTIFF

$1$

$i$

JUSTICE VIVI

## VERSUS

M/S OWODYO LIMITED ::::::::::::::::::::::::: DEFENDANT

Before: The Honourable Lady Justice M. Kireju

## Judgement

The plaintiff claims against the defendant general and special damages for injuries he sustained in an accident in which motor scooter Reg. No. UYI 017 on which the plaintiff was riding as a pasanger collided with the defendant's motor vehicle Barliet Bus registration No. UWH 539 on 4/4/1980 at Kiwambya on Kampala - Mityana Road. The plaintiff claims that the accident was solely due to the negligence of defendant't driver in his capacity as servant or agent of or person driving with the authority of the defendant. The defendant admits the occurrence of the accident but claims that it was wholly caused or in part constributed to by the negligence. of the rider of the Scooter.

At the hearing the plaintiff was represented by learned counsel Dr. Bakibinga of M/S Katende & Ssempebwa Advocates and Mr. Ndozireho, learned counsel of M/S Kirenga & Ndozireho Advocates appeared for the defendant company.

The following were the issues framed at the hearing:-

- (1) Whether the colliston was caused by the negligence of the defendant. - Whether there was contributary negligence on the $(2)$ part of the person riding the scooter. - $(3)$ Whether the principle of Res Ipsa Loquitor applics to the facts of this case. - (4) The quantum of damages if any.

The plaintiff called 4 witnesses in support of his case and the defendant called 2 witnesses after which the advocates made their submissions which I shall refer to as I consider the issues.

Regarding the first issue whether the collision was caused by the negligence of the defendant, the plaintiff himself Richard Musiima Ssempala $.../2...$

testified as P. W.2 that on $4/4/1980$ he was travelling as a passanger on a motor scooter driven by his late brother Kironde. There were travelling from Mityana to Tanda on Mityana-Kampala road. When they reached Kiwambya after 6.30p.m. he saw a bus coming from Kampala infront of them, they were climbing a hill. He saw the bus approaching them on their left hand side. He asked his brother to stop but before the words were out of his mouth they were knocked and he fell into a ditch, his left leg broke and later when he learned of his brother's death he became unconscious until when he became conscious again and found himself in the hospital. In cross-examination he further testified that he did not drink alcohol and his brother was also not drank on that fateful evening. The bus had left its side of the road and was moving to their side just before the accident.

$\mathcal{L}$

PW3 Samuel Jaston Kaluma, 38 years resident of Nakanyenya testified that on $5/4/1980$ at around 7p.m. he wanted to go to the shops which are about 1 Kilometre away. When he reached at Kiwanje, he was descending towards Mityana. He then heard a vehicle moving from behind, when he looked, it did not have lights, he was frightened and decided to move on the side of the road and wait. When the bus passed him, he saw the number and it was UWH 538 and he was surprised that it had passed so late because it used to normally pass during the day. As the bus moved $\langle \cdot \rangle$ forward he had a bang and thought that something had fallen from the bus and he ran to check. When he approached the scene he realised that there was a light which was coming from the front which he could not see anymore. When he arrived at the scene he found a motor scooter lying by the roadside and heard someone calling for help. The witness raised an alarm, when people came they lifted him from the valley where he had fallen. Saulo Kironde who was riding on the Scooter died on the spot. The evidence of this witness is not very helpful as he did not actually witness the accident as to how it happened. He also cited 538 instead of the number of the bus as Wi 539 he also said the accident occurred on $5/4/80$ , however this could be attributed to lapse of time, since from his evidence he appeared to have been familiar with its make and time schedule.

$...$

he witness did not even inform court on which side ci\* the road the plaintiff was found.

Levi Ojok Ongole, testified that he was Assistant Inspector of Police and Officer in Charge of Mityana Police Station, he has been working there since January, 1987. He tendered^ in court the accident report Exh. P. VIT drawn by Frank Masembe D/S/Sgt. No. ?l86» He got this information from the police record. He said that Masembe died on 23/10/1988 after a long illness. tjjg time of his death he was still serving at Mityana Police Station. In cross-examination he testified that there was a letter on record dated 16/I/81 from Mityana Police Station addressed to M/S Munabi & Katongole Advocates in which a police report in respect of an accident on A/A/198O at Kiwabya was enclosed. The letter was signed by Deputy Inspector of Police Wangad/a who was the Commander of Mityana Police Station. He heard that Wangadya had died. Ho further said th^t he did not know where Inspector Ssali was.

The defence called Alphose Maguli D. W. I who testified that on A/4/1980 he was a passanger in Owodyo .bus travelling to Fort Portal. When they reached Tamu after passing a steep road, they mot 2 people on a vespa who were coming from the opposite direction and were zigzaging on the road. He testified that when the driver saw them he tried to avoid knocking them, ho stopped the bus and they hit the bumper on the driver's side and fell in a ditch on the left side. In cross-examination he said that he did not know the registration number of the bus. The accident occurred between 7p»i=i- and 8p.m. He said that the vespa knocked the bus and .fell on the side of the bus. He added that he was sitted in a seat opposite the- driver thats how he was able to see the accident. He did not go to the scene of the accident and did not make any statement to the police. According to him the vespa driver was responsible for the accident. The next defence witness DW2 Anthony David Olupoti testified that he was a retired police officer, currently employed by Kakira Sugar Works as a Security Officer. From 1980 up to 1986 he was stationed at Mityana Police Station. He was second in Cummr.iid of the /zi-

*- 3 ~*

•station and also in charge of traffic. He said that he was responsible for making the accident report namely Exh. D.i. The report was made on the request by the National Insurance Corporation and was made by the witness on 25/5/1984 and sent with a covering letter dated 16/3/1984. He said that the scene of the accident was visited by Masembe as he was not around himself that night. The sketch plan was not there when he made his report. He said he did not know Mr. Wangadya but he knew Inspector of Police Ssali because he took over from him in January, 1980 at Mityana Police Station, Ssali was transferred to Moroto. He further testified that he decided to put away the file because of insufficient evidence as all the witnesses testified that **j** the driver of the Motor Cycle was riding in a zigzag manner on the road. In cross-examination he further testified that he did not try to ascertain from Masembe the circumstances of the accident, he got his information from the eye witnesses when he trustee- cis they were passangers on the bus. He said that he could not visit the scene as the vehicle had been removed.

On the first issue Mr. Ndozireho counsel for the defendant submitted » that the plaintiff has failed to prove his case against the defendant to the required degree. Counsel submitted that although the plaintiff claimed that the accident occurred on the left hand side as you face [| ' Kampala, that he could not tell the point of impact from the middle of the road. Counsel contended that thats why the plaintiff told his brother to pull aside which he did not do on time which counsel said supports the defence evidence that the Scooter was being ridden in a zigzag manner. With regard to the evidence of PW.. J Kaluma, he submitted that it was unreliable since the witness did not witness the accident. Counsel invited court to believe the evidence of DW1 who was an eye witness and testified that the rider of motor scooter was to blame foi' the accident. Counsel also referred to the evidence of DW2 who recommended that the file be put away as there was not enough evidence to prosecute. Counsel invited court to disregard Exh. P.6 tendered in court on behalf of the plaintiff as its author was not 5/

known. He also invited court to ignore the sketch plan because it did not have any evidential value as it did not give the width of the road point of impact and direction of the vehicle, he submitted that the sketch plan was unreliable and of little value and should be disregarded. Counsel invited court to find that the collision was not caused by the defendant's vehicle as there was no evidence to support it. Counsel further submitted that the principle of res ipso loquitor did not apply to the facts of this case. Counsel invited court to dismiss the plaintiff's case with costs.

Dr. Byakibinga submitted that from the evidence the motor scooter was moving from Mityana towards Kampala on the left handside of the road while the defendant's bus was moving towards Mityana on its side it swarved to where the scooter was colliding with it. He submitted that this evidence of PW2 Kaluma was re-enforced by the sketch plan prepared by Masembe. The sketch plan shows that the collision took place on the left side of the road going to Kampala. Counsel invited court to disregard the evidence DW1 Maguli as being unreliable, that the witness claimed that the scooter knocked the bus and fell on the left hand side of the driver which contradicts the evidence of PW2, plaintiff and the police sketch plan. Counsel further submitted that the witness did not remember the registration number of the bus and could have therefore been referring to a different bus, in addition he did not make any statement to police. Counsel submitted that PW4 Ojok Angole tendered in court the police accident report the sketch plan although he was not responsible for drawing them up. The persons who drew up the documents were dead but the documents could still be tendered in evidence under s. 30 of the Evidence Act and Or. $1^4$ r. 18 of Civil Procedure Act. Counsel also referred to the case of Re Koscot Interplanetary UK Ltd (1972 / All ER 829 and Cross on Evidence 5th Ed 1979 p. 492 in support of this contention. Counsel submitted that from the evidence the collision was solely caused by the negligence of the defendant's driver acting in the course of the employment and the defendant should be held liable.

$...16...$

$\cdot \parallel \cdot$

$\overline{5}$

Before I handle this issue I shall first consider the admissibility of the police abstract report Exh. P.7. As a general rule hearsay evidence is not admissible in evidence. However, Section 30 of the Evidence Act Cap 43 provides for circumstances where evidence which has not been directly proved in court orally could be admitted. S. 30(b) is as follows:-

"Statements, written or verbal, of relevant facts made by a person who is dead, or whom cannot be found, or who has become incapable of giving evidence, or whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay on expenses which in the circumstances of the case appears to the court unreasonable, are themselves relevant facts in the following cases:

$(a)$ -----------------

$\cdots\cdots$

(b) When the statement was made by such person in the ordinary course of business, and in particular when it consists of any entry or memorandum made by him in books kept in the ordinary course of business or in the discharge of professional duty or $\bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet \$

$\cdot$ 0

Before evidence can be admitted the provisions of the above section must be complied with, namely that the person who made the statement is dead or cannot be found or has become incapable of giving evidence or his attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expenses which appear to the court to be unreasonable $\mathbb{R}$ and the statement must have been made in the ordinary course of business. In the cited case of Re Kiscot Interplanery (UK) Ltd, Re Koscot AG. Secretary of State for Trade and Industry petitioned for the winding up of the respondent companies and a question arose whether certain documents were admissible in evidence. The court found that if a litigant wishes to put in hearsay evidence by virtue of $S_{\bullet}$ 1 (1) of our Civil Procedure Act 1968 which is almost like $\sqrt{S}$ . 30(b) he must establish in some way that the requirements of the subsection are satisfied, prove that the person existed and he was subject to such duty. I have also examined Or. 14 r. 18 of Civil Procedure Rules find it relevant to this case as it but I did $not$

$...17...$

does not refer to a witness who is dead but refers to a person outside residing, the local limits of the court's jurisdiction and within more than five days journey from the court house who shall not be ordered to give evidence in person. In this case Ojok Angola PW4 testified that Masembe who drew up the sketch plan was dead and had been buried on $25/10/1988$ . This piece of evidence was not challenged by the defence and I believe that Masembe in dead and could therefore not be called upon to give evidence. The fact that Masembe visited the scene of the accident was not disputed as this was also supported by D. W.2 in his evidence and stated in the abstract accident report $Exh$ . P.6 Masembe was employed as a police detective sergeant and the sketch plan was done in the ordinary course of his duty. I have therefore found that the sketch plan has complied with the provisions of S. 30 (b) of the Evidence Act and is permissible since it was made by Masembe who has died and he did it in course of his duty.

Turning to the admissibily of the abstract accident report Exh. P.6. It is alleged to have been drawing by Wangadya DSP on 12/4/198) but was signed on his behalf by Ssali I. P. Masembe No. 7186 of Mityana Police Station is stated there as one of the witnesses. P. W.4 Ojok Angole AIP and O. C. Mityana Police Station also testified that he recognised the accident report and there was a copy on the file. He said that Wangadya DSP is supposed to have died in the East although he did not have the particulars, however, he did not know the whereabout of Ssali I. P. Wangadya who is supposed to have drawn up the report is believed dead, although there was no concrete proof but in the absence of any other evidence that he was still alive, I have found that Wangadya is dead and cannot be called upon to give direct evidence. I did not think that the presence of Ssali would assist this court as he was just signing on on behalf of Wangadya and did not personal knceledge of the matters stated in the report. As D. W.2 stated, one does not have to visit the scene of the accident in order to draw up the abstract police report, this can be done using the evidence of eye witnesses. 18..

$\mathbf{1}$

$\overline{7}$

It appears there are the circumstances under whic.' tfa.ngadya drew up the report as there is no evidence that-.j he visited the scene of the accident. All in all I have found that Exh. P.6 was made by Wangadya who is now dead in the course of his duty as a police officer, and is admissible under S. *JO* of the Evidence Act. The evidential value of Exh. P.6 and P. 7 will considered hereafter.

I shall now consider who was to blame for the accident. It is not disputed that there was collision between the bus and the scooter on ^/4/l98O. The fact that the bus was being driven by the servant of the defendant in the course of his employed is also not disputed. The evidence of DW1 was rather strange, he said that he was sitted opposite the bus driver and thats how he was able to witness the accident. He said that the scooter which was being driven in a zigzag manner hit the bus on the driver side but then fell on the left had side of the bus. If the scooter hit on the side of the driver which is right then it should have fallen on the right side of the bus facing Mityana, The witness appeared to be a bit mixed up in his evidence, he did not even **(** know the registration number of the bus. The witness w js not listed in any of the police abstract report as one of the witnesses^.,. I have found the evidence of this witness sketchy and unreliable and I shall not rely on it. The evidence of D. W.2 was also based on the abstract police report Exh. D.1 which he said he drew up using the evidence of eye witnesses as he himself never **witnessed** the accident or visited the scene of the accident. This report was drawn up by D. W.2 on 16/6/1983 more than three years after the accident. He testified that he used the statements of eye witnesses who were passangers in the bus and he did not try to interview the officer who visited the scene of accident as this was not necessary. The witness did not give--particulars of these witnesses, however, there are only 3 witnesses who appeared on abstract accident report namely Musiima of Tg.nda village who is the plaintiff in in this case and.from his evidence

co/9.. scooter was not being driven in a zigzag manner. Hie second itnuss is DPS/SGT hasenib e police officer who visited the scene of the accident, he did not witro-ss the accident. The third witness was scribLad on the report in long hand and is Augustin Husoke, he was cot summoned to testify and no reasons were given, and therefore we do not know what he stated in his statement. The witness also stated that he advised that the file bo put away as there was insufficient evidence to prosecute. This is not at all surprising as the accident does not seem to have been properly investigate^t for example no reason was given why the driver of the bus was not named as one of the witnesses. The fact that there was no prosecution does not mean much. as this could have been due to the poor manner the accidc t was investigated. I am not convinced that exh. was properly drawn up by the witness using the information from eye witness from the bus, as these witnesses are not known, even D.w. I who claimed to have been a passanger in the bus did not make any statement to the police. I have therefore rejected hixh. D.1 as the source of information on which it was based is not certain D. W.2 testified that there was no sketch plan on the file however in his letter to the Manager

that the sketch plan was not attached as the officer who visited the scene was on long leave and he had not made it. However, this does not agree with his testimony in court and also docs not agree with Exh. P.7 because the sketch plan was drawn on 4/4/1980 by Masembe on the night of the accident. The witness must have heard his other reasons for not wishing to send the sketch plan. I have therefore found the evidence of DW2 unreliable and it does not assist the defence case as the witness was not very truthful even considering that time has lapsed since the report was made.

National Insurance Corporation forwarding the police report he said

I have also perused the abstract accident report exh. P.6 in which the reporting officer is stated to be D/S Sgt V/ilson Masembe. There were witnesses namely Jackson Kaluma PW3, one Kakito and Wilson Masembe. The report was made immediately after the accident and I have

found it acceptable as stating the facts of what happened as the reporting'officer actually visited the scene, The sketch plan was drawn after the bus had moved from the scene and it is really sketchy but at least it shows the position where the plaintiff fell after the accident which is the left side of th road coming from Mityana, which supports the evidence of. P. W.2 that bus hit them on their side of the road. The driver of the bus was expected to keep his side of the road and not move from his side of the.road\* I do not believe the story of the defence witnesses that the rider of the scooter was riding **in** a zigzag manner, if it were true the driver of the bus should have stopped well in adyhnee to avoid the careless rider colliding with his bus since they were on a straight road and he could see what was happening. I find that the defendant's driver was negligent in causing the accident as he left his side of the road and collided, with the scooter thus breaching his duty of care he owes to other road users. The defendant's driver was wholly responsible for the accident therefore the defendant company is vacariously liable for the acts of its employee in the course of his employment. The issue of contributary negligence was abandoned as the evidence before court does not support it at all.

The next issue whether the doctorine of res ipso laquitor applifj' to the facts of this case. Counsel for the plaintiff referred me 'to the case of Hanziri 8g or. vs. Joseph Kambanza /197^. / JCB where the terms res ipso loquitor was defined as a rule of evidence and not a rule of law, enabling the plaintiff to lead facts of the accident and thereby establish a breach of duty of care on the part' of the defendant without proving the particulars of negligence. Counsel further submitted that the evidence of the plaintiff's witnesses together with the sketch plan fall within the above definition. He-'said that the conditions which have to be followed before the rule can be applied have been proved, namely that the thing which caused the damage was under the control and management of the defendant or of someone for whom he has the right to control,

Secondly th^i\* rk me occurrance is such that it would not have happened without ngligence, thirdly they must be no evidence as to why or how the occurrance took place. These same conditions were laid down in the case of Bikwatirizo vs. Kailways Corporation ZJ971/ E. M. 83. yir> Ndozireho counsel for the defendant submitted that the doctorine did not apply as there was evidence that the scooter was being ridden in a zigzag manner leading to the collision with the bus.

I have considered the submissions by both counsel on this issue. The first condition has been proved namely that the bus was being driven by an employee of defendant. However, I am not satisfied that the other two conditions- have been proved, this accident occurred at night, the sketch plan was taken after the bus had left the scene the point of impact was therefore not established. I have therefore found that the doctorine of res ipso loquitor does hot properly fit in circumstances of this case but as already stated above, the plaintiff has managed to prove negligence by the defendant on balance of probability.

The last issue is the quantum of damages. In his plaint the plaintiff claimed general and special damages. The plaintiff testified that his right leg broke during the accident, he also sustained injuries on the head and felt a lot of pain. He was hospitalised in Mulago Hospital for 8 months, as there was no medicine in Mulago, he transferred to Rubaga Hospital. He testified that after he had healed he could not walk properly and he cannot squart. He can no longer play football which he used to do before the accident. The evidence of the plaintiff was supported by that of Dr. Ssali P. W. I a surgeon at Mulago Hospital who prepared a medical report dated 23/3/82 which was produced in evidence as Exh. P.1. According to the report the plaintiff sustained the following injuries:

1. Closed fracture of the right femur.

2. Compound fracture of the right tibia and fibula. He was treated at Mulago Hospital and Rubaga Hospital, by 10/11/81 his wound and the fracture had completely healed., when he was examined

/12..

nn 2^/3/1982 hi:; ri^ht fractured femur had united with angulation and a deformity. His right tibia and fibula had also united with a deformity and a depression over the tibia pt t.he site of the fracture\* There were multiple scars in the skin around. the same area, He walked with a limp and complained of the pain in the ri^ht ankle and knee when walking\* He has a shortening of the ri~ht lower limb of 4cm, flexion of the ri-ht knees is limited by 10n. His ri~ht ankle is stiff and has limitation of dorsiflexion of 5°\* ^he disabilities *were* likely to lead to secondary osteoarthritis in his right hip, knee and ankle later in life which will increase his current disability. The decree of his disability was assessed at 20%. However the doctor did not examine the plaintiff again so we have to rely on this old medical report which is more than 10 years old. The court would have seen n-reatly assisted if the plaintiff had been examined again to give his present condition. However, I observed him in court and he still walks with a limp but it is not known whether he has **t** developed secondary Osteorthritis referred to by the doctor\*

The law is that a person is responsible for the natural and probable, results of his wrongful act which a reasonable person would have foreseen. I am therefore satisfied that the plaintiff sustained the injuries described by the doctor as a result of the accident and is therefore entitled tn compensation.

Counsel for the plaintiff su-gested that a sum of shs. 1,870,000/= be awarded to\*his client as general damages and that the court should take into consideration the delay the plaintiff has taken to "et the award a'period of over 13 years. Counsel cited the case of William Musisi vs. Charles . Ssemwogerere 1982 H. C. E. 70 decided on 8/4/32 wnere the 2nd plaintiff sustained a double closed fracture nf the ri^ht leg, the upper *Jrd* of the tibia and lower 3rd of the femur, the leg was shortened 1cm.

../13

The left knee was only flexable to 120°. Permanent disability was assessed at \*40%, reneral damages of shs. 80,000/= were awarded. He also referred tn the case of Charles Kya.san.ku vs. UTC (1981) H. C.-B. 87. The third plaintiff sustained a compound fracture of his riHit tibia and fibula which united with deformity and shortening of one inch, his permanent physical disability was assessed at 20% and he was awarded shs. 55,000/= general damages. Counsel further cited the case of Patrick Kakooza vs. Larco QOBcrete Products and Another 1981 k. C. B. 89 decided on 2/1/1981 \* The plaintiff ared 2\*i years, a field assistant, sustained three compound fractures of the right tibia and fibula which united within 3 months, but had suffered severe pain, permanent disability assessed at 20% and an award of shs. 80,000/=, general damages was made. Counsel also referred to the cases of Manyanja vs.. UTC (1981) H. C. B 85 where in a case of more serious injuries than the present case, the permanent disability arus assessed at *k-Ctfo* and shs. 100,000/= awarded as reneral damages. In the case of William Subtdde vs. John Mukiibi 1981 H. C. B. 84 the plaintiff sustained a combined fracture or the right femur among other injuries i.e. leg shortened and he had a limp, permanent disability assessed at 20% and shs. 100,000/= general damages awarded. In the case of Joyce Muwanika & 5 others vs. UTC Ltd. 1981 H. C. B, 82. The 1st plaintiff sustained a fracture of the right femur, fracture of the right tibia and fibula and a compound fracture of the right humerus permanent disability assessed at 40% an award of shs. 120,000/= was awarded.

Counsel submitted that the general damages in the cited cases which were almost similar to the present case ranged from shs. 55,OOOA to shs, 120,000/=. He said that if you take the dollar rate of shs. 80.cents 52 in September 1981 it would be shs. 853,75>/= and shs. 1,867,891/=.

.../u

He prayed that the plaintiff be paid the highest i.e. shs. 1.87m. I have carefully looked at the authorities cited above some of them cover the injuries similar to those sustained by the plaintiff, however, those where there were higher award the injuries were many and the permanent disability was higher. It would therefore not give a fair assessment if we took the highest award as proposed by the plaintiff's counsel. I always prefer to use the dollar as a guide line when assessing damages but not to use it as a matter of course as other matters have to be considered. Whereas the dollar rate has been going up steadily against our shilling some other things like the wages, salaries " and cost of foodstuffs has not risen at the same rate. Unfortunately I have not come across a recent case which is on all fours with the present one. After considering, injuries the plaintiff sustained, the pain the long period he had to undergo treatment, the permanent disability which has affected his sports life, I would award the plaintiff general damages of shs. 1.5m (one million five hundred thousand shillings).

$\overline{14}$

With regard to special damages it is now settled law that they should be specifically pleaded and proved. Civil Appeal No. 37 of 199 Kananura Melvin Consulting Engineers vs. Connie Kabanda : (Supreme Court case unreported) and Kampala City Council vs. Nakaye $/1972$ / E. A. 446. Counsel for the plaintiff invited court to use the current dollar rate i.e. convert the cost's of the item into dollars at the time of the accident April 1980 which he put at shs. 80.52. He invited court to convert the cost of the items into the dollars as at April, 1,80 then multiply the result by the current dollar rate of shs. $1220/$ =. For example he calculated the cost of the watch and it came to shs. $106.054/-$ . However, I do not agree with this type of calculation. I am of the opinion that what the plaintiff should have done is to find out the current market price of the items and then amend the plaint accordingly. The plaintiff produced receipts to prove some of the claims namely the shoes shs. 5,500/=, which sha. 7,000/=, $... / 15...$

$\displaystyle \overline{\textbf{e}}$

$\mathbf{L}$

hospital bill from Rubaga Hospital shs. 270' and the receipt for sketch plan shs, 25/=. These claims have been proved by the plaintiff. If the Current Reform Statute of 19^7 was applied to these already norminal figures there will be very little left. But since tne whole purpose of compesating the plaintiff is to try and put him in the position he would have been in if the accident had not occurred, in the interest of justice, I shall give him the special damages claimed in plaint without taking away the\* two zeros as required by the statute. The plaintiff will therefore be awarded special damages of shs. 15j225/=.

In the result there will be judgement for the plaintiff in the sum of shs. 1.5m/= (one million, five hundred thousand shillings) general damages special damages of shs. 15j225/= special damages with interest on total amount at the current court rate from the date of this judgement till payment in full plus costs of this suit.

M. Kireju

Judge. 2/9/93

## 14/9/1993

Mr. Ndozireho for the defendant. Mr. Musoke for the plaintiff. Court clerk - Mr. Muwonge. Court: Judgement read out.

> ii.' \*G. DY. REGISTRAR 14/9/1995