Bridge Limited and Others v Byabagabo and Another (Miscellaneous Application 57 of 2019)
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
The court held that a government employee who exceeds their authority by ordering destruction of property without a court order acts outside the course and scope of employment. The employee cannot claim vicarious liability protection where their acts constitute potential criminal conduct. A fact-finding mission does not authorize an agent to constitute themselves into a court, make orders, and execute them. The plaintiff has a cause of action against the employee personally which must be determined on merit.
Outcome
Application dismissed; suit against 2nd applicant to proceed on merit
Facts
The 1st respondent claimed customary tenure over land his late father occupied. In 2015, the 1st applicant (Bridge Limited) acquired the mailo title from the 3rd applicant. The 2nd applicant, a government employee at State House working on land matters, was instructed to investigate complaints about evictions. During her visit to the land, she ordered the destruction of over 30,000 eucalyptus trees belonging to the 1st respondent and directed the 1st applicant to take possession. The 1st respondent instituted a civil suit for recovery of his kibanja. The applicants moved this application seeking dismissal of the suit against the 2nd applicant on grounds that she was acting in the course of her employment and should not be personally liable.
Issues
- Whether the suit discloses a cause of action against the 2nd applicant
- Whether the 2nd applicant acted within the course and scope of her employment as a government employee
- Whether the Attorney General should be liable under the principle of vicarious liability for the 2nd applicant's actions
Orders
- Application dismissed for lack of merit.
- Costs awarded to the respondents.
- Right of appeal explained.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (7)
Cases cited (2)
- Muwonge v Attorney General [1967] 1 EA 17
- Hon. Okupa Elijah v Attorney General and Others [2018] UGHCCD 10
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.