Wakilii

Apio Concy v Attorney General of Uganda and Another (Civil Suit 4 of 2021)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 471 · 2026 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for damages arising from personal injury caused by shooting by UPDF soldiers
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff against the 1st Defendant with damages and costs; 2nd Defendant found not liable

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 High Court held that the Attorney General is vicariously liable for the tortious acts of UPDF soldiers who shot and injured the plaintiff while escorting the Resident District Commissioner. The court awarded general damages of UGX 100,000,000 and special damages of UGX 53,051,000 (less UGX 20,000,000 already paid), with interest at bank rate from judgment. The second defendant was found not vicariously liable. The claim for exemplary damages was rejected.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff against the 1st Defendant with damages and costs; 2nd Defendant found not liable

Facts

On 15 January 2021, the plaintiff was travelling in a lorry on the Abim-Kotido Road when a pickup truck driven by the 2nd Defendant (Resident District Commissioner of Kotido) overtook the lorry. Two UPDF soldiers escorting the 2nd Defendant jumped out and fired several bullets at the lorry cabin. One bullet struck the plaintiff's left leg, causing a comminuted fracture of the left distal tibia, soft tissue damage, excessive bleeding, and pain. The plaintiff underwent surgery, prolonged treatment including skin grafting and nail replacement, and suffered temporal disability. The 2nd Defendant paid UGX 20,000,000 towards medical bills. The plaintiff incurred medical and related expenses totalling UGX 64,411,000.

Issues

  1. Whether the 1st Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff.
  2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought.
  3. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to any remedies.

Orders

  • General damages of UGX 100,000,000 awarded to the plaintiff.
  • Special damages of UGX 53,051,000 awarded, less UGX 20,000,000 already received from the 1st Defendant's servants.
  • Interest on the awards at bank rate from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • The 2nd Defendant is not vicariously liable for the actions of the soldiers.
  • The 1st Defendant is vicariously liable for the actions of the soldiers who shot and injured the plaintiff.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Negligence — Elements — Duty of Care, Breach, and Injury
To establish negligence, a plaintiff must prove three elements: that the defendant owed a duty of care, that the defendant breached that duty, and that the plaintiff suffered injury as a result of the breach.
Vicarious Liability — Master and Servant — Acts in Course of Employment
A master is vicariously liable for tortious acts committed by a servant in the course of the servant's employment. For vicarious liability to attach, there must exist a relationship between the party and the person who committed the negligent act, and the act must have been done in the course of employment, not when the person was acting independently.
State Liability — Vicarious Liability for UPDF Soldiers
The Attorney General is legally responsible under the laws of Uganda for tortious acts committed by officers of the Uganda People's Defence Forces in the course of their duties.
Special Damages — Pleading and Proof
Special damages must not only be specifically pleaded but must also be strictly proved. However, strict proof does not necessarily always require documentary evidence.
General Damages — Assessment — Nature and Extent of Injury
In the assessment of general damages, the court should be mainly guided by the nature and extent of the injury suffered. A plaintiff who suffers damage due to the wrongful act of the defendant must be put in the position he or she would have been in if he or she had not suffered the wrong.
Exemplary Damages — Rejection Where Compensatory Damages Adequate
Exemplary damages, also referred to as punitive damages, are of a penal nature and deterrent in purpose, aimed at curbing the repeat of the offending act. They are awarded in addition to compensatory damages but may be rejected where compensatory damages are deemed adequate.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (17)

  • Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562
  • Auto Garage v Motokov [1971] EA 314
  • Nyendi v KPI Security Services (High Court Appeal No. 1 of 2014)
  • Okupa v Attorney General and 73 Others (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 74 of 2005)
  • Akampurira Isaac v Biryomumaiso Vian (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2024)
  • Paul Byekwoso v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 70 of 2002)
  • Borham-Carter v Hyde Park Hotel [1948] 64 TLR
  • Masaka Municipal Council v Semogerere [1998-2000] HCB 23
  • Musoke David v Departed Asians Property Custodian Board [1990-1994] EA 219
  • Kyambadde v Mpigi District Administration [1983] HCB 44
  • Haji Asuman Mutekanga v Equator Growers (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1995)
  • Gapco (U) Ltd v AS Transporters (U) Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2004)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
  • Storms v Hutchinson [1905] AC 515
  • Kabona Brothers Agencies v Uganda Metal Products & Enamelling Co Ltd [1981-1982] HCB 74
  • Kiwanuka Godfrey T/a Tasumi Auto Spares and Class Mart v Arua District Local Government (High Court Civil Suit No. 186 of 2006)
  • Esso Standard (U) Ltd v Semu Amamu Opio (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1993)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Apio Concy v Attorney General of Uganda and Another (Civil Suit 4 of 2021) [2026] UGHC 471 (11 February 2026)
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.