Awino & 4 Ors v Luwaga & Anor (CIVIL SUIT NO. 139 OF 2006) [2012] UGHC 301 (30 April 2012);


Search Summary: 

In this case plaintiffs sought court for awards of special and general damages against
the defendants. This was on grounds of negligence on the part of the defendants that
had resulted in the death of their relatives after a building collapsed belonging to the
defendants. However the case against the second defendant was withdrawn.

Headnote and Holding: 

The court considered whether the suit had been time barred and whether the defendant
was at the material time the owner of the church. Court held that the suit was not time
barred and the defendant was the owner at the material time. Court was satisfied that

the actual position of law regarding limitation for this kind of cause of action was not
12 calendar moths but three years. Furthermore court was satisfied that the plaintiffs
had been able to prove that the defendant was the owner of the church when it
Court then considered whether the deceased was an invitee in the church when it
collapsed and whether the church collapsed owing to negligence of the defendant or
his agents plus remedies available to parties. Court held that the deceased had been an
invitee in the church and the church had collapsed due to negligence of the defendant.
Court was satisfied from its findings that the deceased had been invited to attend
church given that she was not a trespasser and that in fact every member attending
church would be a universal invitee at any time it is open. Court was further satisfied
that the church collapsed due to defendant’s negligence that he had used poor quality
materials and he failed to cooperate with the authorities or else the defects would have
been detected and prevented in time. For that matter the plaintiffs as a remedy were
entitled to Ugandan shillings 60million divided and apportioned to them according to
the level of dependence on the deceased at the time of her death, however court could
not award to them any kind of damages as they had not proved them.
Accordingly court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.


Subscribe to RSS - Negligence