reputation but it is the whole family which was injured by the Respondents’ act. It has been stated by the Court of Appeal in the case of PETER JOSEPH KIBILIKA VS. PATRIC ALOYCE MLINGI, Civil Appeal No. 39 of 2009 (CAT-unreported) when quoting the case of ADMIRALTY COMMISSIONERS VS. SS SUSQEHANNA [1950] 1 ALL ER 392, had this to say: “If the damage be general, then it must be averred that such damage has been suffered, but the quantification of such damage is a jury question.” Further, in the case of P.N. JONATHAN VS. ATHUMAN KHALFAN 1980 TLR, 175 at page 190, Lugakingira J. (as he then was), had this to say: “The position as it therefore emerges to me is that general damages are compensatory in character. They are intended to take care of the Plaintiff’s loss of reputation, as well as to act as solarium for mental and pain suffering.” In this matter, there is no dispute the Petitioner claimed general damages, though he did not quantify the same of which I find the omission not offensive. However, in consideration of the injury explained by the Petitioner, this court finds the award 38

Seleccionar párrafo de destino3

Conectar a un párrafo
Connect to an entity
Disable highlights
Añadir a la tabla de contenidos