A teacher who was seriously injured in a road accident by a reckless driver of California Bus Service shall be paid Shs 20.8 million by the bus company after the High Court dismissed the company’s appeal.
Justice Harriet Grace Magala ruled that the appeal by California Bus Service and its driver, Micheal Edace, could not stand because they failed to identify any specific error committed by the magistrates’ court.
It all started on April 28, 2019, when Jemmily Osubia was injured in a road accident along the Karuma-Pakwach Highway.
After the accident, Osubia sued California Bus Service together with its driver in the Chief Magistrate’s Court in Arua, accusing the driver of negligent driving while acting in the course of his employment.
She told the court that the injuries changed her life because she had to undergo several operations, which cost her Shs 10.4 million.
She further complained that the injuries permanently damaged her left arm, leaving her in constant pain and affecting her work as a teacher.
In the magistrates court, California Bus Service did not file any defence, and on December 7, 2021, the court ruled in Osubia’s favour.
The court ruled that Edace, the driver, had caused the accident while acting within the scope of his employment and that California Bus Service was therefore legally responsible for his actions.
It awarded Osubia Shs20 million in general damages for pain, suffering, and loss of amenities and an additional Shs 800,000 in special damages.
Dissatisfied with that outcome, California Bus Service appealed to the High Court. The bus company was represented by Alaka & Co. Advocates, a prominent law firm.
In the appeal, the company asked the High Court to set aside both the ruling and the earlier judgment that had awarded Osubia damages.
Court says G4S must pay tax on meals provided to its security guards
Justice Magala, however, found serious defects in the appeal itself, observing that although the bus company appeared to challenge both the magistrate’s ruling and the judgment, its notice of appeal only referred to the ruling in the miscellaneous application.
She said the sole ground of appeal failed to identify any specific mistake made by the magistrate.
“It is not enough for them to merely state that the ruling should be set aside and that they should be allowed to file a defense out of time,” Justice Magala said.
She criticised advocates who draft vague grounds of appeal, saying appellate courts should not be turned into forums for “a fishing expedition.”
She cited several previous decisions of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court which require appellants to point out the exact legal or factual errors they are challenging.
Justice Magala concluded that California Bus Service had failed to meet that legal standard.
“[California Bus Service] is on a fishing expedition, hoping the court will identify for them any wrong, if any, committed by the trial court. Such a ground of appeal cannot be left to stand,” she ruled.
Justice Magala dismissed the appeal and said Osubia’s award of Shs 20 million in general damages and Shs 800,000 in special damages remains in force, together with interest and the costs awarded by the magistrate’s court.
