Wakilii

Tusingwire Barahandika( for and on behalf of 3311 others) v Attorney General and another (Civil Appeal No. 210 of 2018)

Court of Appeal · [2022] UGCA 296 · 2022 Appeal Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First appeal from a High Court judgment dismissing a representative civil suit for damages arising from State agents' violent acts
Decision
Appeal allowed; each appellant awarded UGX 10,000,000 in general damages with costs

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 1 Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Court of Appeal held that government was vicariously liable for the violent acts of its security officials (GISOs and sub-county chiefs) who, while armed with government-issued weapons, in uniform and using government vehicles, attacked the appellants, since these acts were done in the course of their employment even if contrary to orders. The Court found the appellants' constitutional rights under Article 50 were infringed, entitling them to compensation. The appeal succeeded entirely, and each of the 3311 appellants was awarded UGX 10,000,000 in general damages plus costs of the appeal and the suit below.

Facts

Following the January 2002 District Chairperson elections in Kibaale District, in which a Mukiga candidate defeated a Munyoro incumbent, violence erupted between Bakiga and Banyoro supporters from February 2002 through to the end of 2003. The appellants, suing on behalf of 3311 others, alleged they were attacked in their homes by District officials, GISO officials, police, central government officials and members of the Bunyoro-Mubende Committee. Houses were burnt, animals slaughtered, churches and plantations destroyed, and people injured or killed. Government vehicles and government-issued firearms were used in the attacks. Named perpetrators included Bazara Lawrence, a GISO who was armed, in Special Police Constable uniform and using government vehicles, and sub-county chiefs Asiimwe Vincent and Matiya Kasaija. The trial Judge found that government officials committed the atrocities and caused loss, but held the respondents were not vicariously liable, finding the perpetrators were on a frolic of their own. The appellants appealed.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial Judge erred in failing to consider the violation of the appellants' constitutional rights and the State's role in protecting them.
  2. Whether the respondents were vicariously liable for the violent acts perpetrated by their employees and agents.
  3. Whether the trial Judge erred in failing to properly evaluate the evidence and dismissing the suit, and what remedies are available.

Orders

  • Grounds one and two allowed.
  • Appeal succeeds entirely.
  • Each of the appellants awarded general damages of Ug. Shs. 10,000,000.
  • Costs of the appeal and the suit at the High Court awarded to the appellants.

Key headnotes

Vicarious Liability — Acts of State Security Officials — Course of Employment
An employer, including the government, is liable for the wrongful acts of an employee done in the course of employment even where the acts are done contrary to orders or are committed deliberately, wantonly, negligently or criminally, provided what was done is merely a manner of carrying out what the employee was employed to do.
Vicarious Liability — Use of Government Arms, Uniform and Vehicles as Indicator of Scope of Employment
Where a security officer commits violent acts while armed with a government-issued firearm, in uniform and using government vehicles, those acts are committed in the course of employment, rendering the government vicariously liable notwithstanding the criminal nature of the conduct.
Enforcement of Rights — Compensation as Redress under Article 50
A person whose fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution have been infringed is entitled to apply to a competent court for redress, which may include compensation under Article 50(1) of the Constitution.
General Damages — Assessment for Loss of Life, Property and Displacement
General damages are awarded to put the claimant in the position they would have been in had they not suffered the wrong; where the value of lives lost and individual property destroyed cannot be precisely ascertained, the court may award a uniform sum of general damages to each claimant.
First Appeal — Duty to Re-evaluate Evidence
On a first appeal the appellate court is enjoined to review and re-evaluate the evidence as a whole, closely scrutinise it, draw its own inferences and reach its own conclusion pursuant to Rule 30(1)(a) of the Rules of the Court of Appeal.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 50(1)
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 221
  • Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act Cap 72 s.3(1)
  • Rules of the Court of Appeal Rule 30(1)(a)

Cases cited (4)

  • A.K.P.M Lutaaya v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2002)
  • Muwonge v Attorney General of Uganda [1967] EA 17
  • Pandya v R [1957] EA 336
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.