Deo Kigozi v Uganda Commercial Bank (Civil Suit 12 of 1996)
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 a bank is vicariously liable for the tortious acts of CID officers seconded to its investigation office where the bank exercised control over their operations. The plaintiff was entitled to damages for false imprisonment, assault, and loss of income arising from unlawful impounding of his vehicle by the bank's investigation officers.
Outcome
Defendant held vicariously liable for wrongful impounding of vehicle, false imprisonment, and assault; special and general damages awarded to plaintiff
Facts
On 7 December 1994, the plaintiff purchased a Toyota Hiace minibus from Rashid Sempa for UGX 11 million. The vehicle operated as a taxi between Kampala and Hoima, generating daily income. On 17 January 1995, CID officers seconded to the defendant bank's investigation office impounded the vehicle on suspicion that it had been purchased with money embezzled by John Bosco Ssemwogerere, a bank employee. The officers were investigating a shortage of UGX 12.56 million. On 10 March 1995, the plaintiff went to the bank to recover his vehicle with documentation proving ownership. He was arrested, detained for the day, and assaulted with a cable by an investigation officer. The vehicle was returned on 3 May 1995 after nearly four months. The plaintiff sought special damages for loss of income and general damages for false imprisonment and assault.
Issues
- Whether the plaintiff has a cause of action against the defendant.
- If the plaintiff has a cause of action, what remedies are available to the plaintiff.
Orders
- Judgment entered for the plaintiff.
- Defendant to pay UGX 7,565,000 in special damages.
- Defendant to pay UGX 3,000,000 in general damages.
- Interest on special and general damages at court's rate from date of filing suit to date of payment in full.
- Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (2)
Cases cited (10)
- Makerere University v Daudi Kasiringi ((1977) HCB 25)
- M'bin vs. Dver [1967] E.A. 315
- Muwonge v Attorney General ([1967] EA 17)
- Nambi Kibirige v Attorney General ((1990) HCB 133)
- K Fivandas and Co Ltd v Nakadama (Court of Appeal No. 3 of 1973)
- Simmons vs. Heath Laundry Company (1910) 1KB. 543
- Bagnall vs. Levinstein Ltd. (1907) IKB 531
- Honey will And Stein Ltd. Vs. Lankin -Bros (London's Commercial Photographers) Ltd. [1933] ALL E.R. 77
- Bugest vs. Gray (1845) I.C.B. 578
- Hardaker vs. Idle District Council 2 Q.B. 72
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.