Bus company loses appeal over defective court filing
The trial court later found that the driver had driven recklessly and negligently while acting in the course of his employment with California Bus Service, making both the driver and the company liable for the accident.
Bus company loses appeal over defective court filing
____________________
California Bus Service Limited and one of its drivers have lost their bid to overturn a lower court decision that favoured a passenger, Jemmily Osubia, who successfully sued the bus company for injuries she sustained in a 2019 road crash.
This was after the High Court in Arua dismissed an appeal filed by California Bus Service Limited and one of its drivers, ruling that it was founded on a defective and vague ground that failed to identify any specific error committed by the trial magistrate.
In a judgment delivered online on July 1, 2026, Justice Harriet Grace Magala struck out the appellants’ only ground of appeal before dismissing the entire appeal with costs to Osubia.
The dispute arose from a road accident that occurred on April 28, 2019, along the Karuma–Pakwach Highway.
Osubia sued California Bus Service and its driver, Micheal Edace, claiming that the driver negligently drove the company’s bus, registration number UAP 161F, at excessive speed, causing an accident in which she sustained simple and compound fractures to her left arm.
Osubia told court that she underwent several surgical operations and spent over sh10.4m on medical treatment.
Court records show that although the defendants were served with summons through a court process server, they failed to file a defence.
The Chief Magistrate subsequently entered a default judgment against them before proceeding with formal proof.
The trial court later found that the driver had driven recklessly and negligently while acting in the course of his employment with California Bus Service, making both the driver and the company liable for the accident.
Osubia was awarded sh20m in general damages and sh800,000 in special damages, together with interest.
The appellants later applied to have the default judgment and ex-parte proceedings set aside, arguing that they had not been properly served with court summons.
They subsequently appealed to the High Court seeking to overturn the ruling dismissing their application.
However, Justice Magala found that the Notice of Appeal challenged only the ruling in Miscellaneous Application number 21 of 2022 and not the judgment in the main civil suit.
She further held that the appellants’ sole ground of appeal merely alleged that the trial magistrate failed to properly evaluate the evidence without identifying the specific findings or legal errors being challenged.
The judge observed that appellate courts require parties to clearly state the precise errors they seek to challenge rather than file general complaints that leave the court to search for possible mistakes.
Citing several decisions of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal, Justice Magala held that the appellants’ ground of appeal amounted to a “fishing expedition” because it lacked the specificity required under the Civil Procedure Rules.
She struck out the only ground of appeal, leaving the appeal with no valid issue for determination, and dismissed it with costs to Osubia.
The appellants were represented by Alaka and Company Advocates, while the respondent was represented by Odama and Company Advocates.