Wakilii

Apwoyorwot (suing through a next friend Oyella) v Attorney General and Another (Civil Suit 21 of 2020)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 291 · 2023 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 battery and medical negligence committed by a police nurse
Decision
Plaintiff awarded damages jointly and severally against both defendants for battery and medical negligence

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

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.

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

Held that the 2nd defendant, a police nurse, committed battery and medical negligence by pricking a two-year-old patient with a syringe without medical justification or consent, acting outside the scope of proper medical care. The 1st defendant (Attorney General) is vicariously liable for the 2nd defendant's acts committed while on duty. Plaintiff awarded special damages of UGX 586,000 and general damages of UGX 5,000,000, with 10% interest per annum from judgment date. Prior criminal compensation taken into account in assessing quantum.

Outcome

Plaintiff awarded damages jointly and severally against both defendants for battery and medical negligence

Facts

On 17 April 2019, the plaintiff, a two-year-old minor, was taken by her mother to Gulu Police Health Center III for treatment of suspected malaria. The laboratory test was negative but upper respiratory tract infection was diagnosed. The 2nd defendant, a police nurse on duty at the facility, pricked the plaintiff on the left shoulder with a syringe while out of the mother's view. The plaintiff bled and cried. The 2nd defendant admitted pricking the child, claiming he wanted to scare her because she was following him and becoming a nuisance. The 2nd defendant discarded the syringe immediately. Medical authorities placed the plaintiff on Post Exposure Prophylaxis (PEP) to prevent HIV infection risk. The plaintiff allegedly experienced hair loss, stomach swelling, and other side effects during treatment. The 2nd defendant was criminally prosecuted, convicted of common assault, fined UGX 2,000,000, and ordered to pay compensation of UGX 2,000,000 to the plaintiff's mother, which he paid.

Issues

  1. Whether the actions of the 2nd defendant amounted to battery and medical/professional negligence.
  2. Whether the 1st defendant is vicariously liable for the acts of the 2nd defendant.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Judgment given for the plaintiff against both defendants jointly and severally.
  • Plaintiff awarded special damages of UGX 586,000.
  • Plaintiff awarded general damages of UGX 5,000,000.
  • Both special and general damages to attract interest of 10% per annum from 6 October 2023 until full payment.
  • No order as to costs.
  • 2nd defendant free to fully pay awards but 1st defendant remains equally liable.

Rules and key headnotes

Trespass to Person — Battery — Elements
Battery consists in touching another's person in a violent, angry, rude or insolent manner against their will, however slightly, with hostile intent. The touching may be direct or indirect and need not involve actual bodily contact in all circumstances.
Medical Negligence — Duty of Care — Standard
A medical practitioner who holds himself or herself as ready to give medical advice or treatment impliedly undertakes that he or she possesses the requisite skill and knowledge. Once consulted by a patient, the practitioner owes a duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case, in deciding what treatment to give, and in administering that treatment. The standard of care required is that of a reasonably competent practitioner in the field, not the highest expert skill.
Medical Negligence — Pricking Patient Without Treatment Purpose
A nurse who pricks a patient with a syringe without medical justification, proper consent, or treatment purpose, for the purpose of frightening or disciplining the patient, falls below the standard of a reasonably competent medical professional and commits medical negligence and battery.
Vicarious Liability — Scope of Employment — Tortious Acts
An employer is vicariously liable for the acts of an employee committed while in the course of employment and within the scope of the employer's business. An act may be done in the course of employment so as to make the master liable even though it is done contrary to orders, and even if done deliberately, wantonly, negligently or criminally, provided that what was done is merely a manner of carrying out what the employee was employed to do.
Damages — Special Damages — Proof and Pleading
Special damages must be explicitly pleaded and strictly proved at trial. The plaintiff must prove both that the loss was incurred and that it was the direct result of the defendant's conduct. Special damages need not be supported by documentary evidence in all cases as cogent verbal evidence can suffice, particularly for transport expenses by informal means such as boda boda where receipts are not customarily issued.
Damages — General Damages — Criminal Compensation as Mitigation
Where a plaintiff has received compensation as a result of a criminal conviction arising from the same facts that form the basis of a civil action, the civil court should take into account the compensation paid through the criminal process when assessing general damages, to avoid double recovery for the same injury.
Double Jeopardy — Civil and Criminal Proceedings Distinguished
The mere fact that a defendant has been prosecuted and convicted for a crime is no bar to civil liability on account of the same facts. Some tortious acts are also crimes and both criminal and civil actions can be taken against the wrongdoer. A civil suit following a criminal conviction does not constitute double jeopardy, though prior criminal compensation may be taken into account when assessing damages.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (29)

  • Stanley Kamihanda v Attorney General (HCCS No. 1201 of 1998)
  • Kimmy Paul Semenye Vs. Aga Khan Hospital & 2 others [2006] KLR
  • Kabiito Telesphorus v Attorney General & 2 Others (HCT-01-CV-CS-026 of 2012)
  • Watsemwa & another v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 675 of 2006)
  • Bolam Vs. Fiern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 2 All ER 118
  • Milburga Atcero v Women's Hospital International and Fertility Centre Ltd & 3 others (HCCS No. 298 of 2012)
  • Blyth Vs. Birmingham Co. [1856] 11 Exch. 781
  • Maynord Vs. West Midlands Regional Health Authority [1985] 1 All ER 635
  • Sidaway Vs. Board of Governors of Bethlem Royal Hospital [1985] AC 871
  • F Vs. W.B Health Authority [1989] All ER 545
  • Bolitho Vs. City and Hackney Health Authority [1998] AC 232
  • Muwonge Vs. Attorney General [1967] 1 EA 17 (CAK)
  • Kyambadde Vs. Mpigi District Administration [1983] HCB 44
  • Kampala City Council Vs. Nakaye (1972) E.A 446
  • Gapco (U) Ltd v A.S Transporters Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 07 of 2007)
  • Uganda Telecom Ltd Vs. Tanzanite Corporation [2005] 2 E.A 331
  • John Eletu Vs. Uganda Airlines Corporation [1984] HCB 44
  • Musoke v. Departed Asians Custodian Board [1990-1994] EA 219
  • Mutekanga v. Equator Growers (U) Ltd [1995-1998] 2 EA 219
  • Uganda Breweries Ltd v Uganda Railways Corporation (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2001)
  • Hall Brothers Steamship Company, Ltd. Vs. Young (1939) IKB 748
  • Kibimba Rice Co. Ltd v Umar Salim (SCCA No. 7 of 1988)
  • Crown Beverages Ltd v Sendu Edward (SCCA No. 1 of 2005)
  • Robert Coussens v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1999)
  • V.R Chande Vs. East African Railways Corporation (1964) E.A 78
  • Bank of Uganda v F.W Masaba & Others (SCCA No. 3 of 1998)
  • Livingstone Vs. Ronoyard's Coal Co. (1880) 5. App. Cas 259
  • Atto Filder v Wibi Elija & Umeme Limited (Civil Suit No. 26 of 2013)
  • Sarah Kulata Basangwa v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2018)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Apwoyorwot (suing through a next friend Oyella) v Attorney General and Another (Civil Suit 21 of 2020) [2023] UGHCCD 291 (6 October 2023)
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.