Wakilii

Dr. Bishop N. Okille v Mesusera Eliot and Another (Civil Appeal No. 29 of 1997)

Court of Appeal · [1998] UGCA 25 · 1998 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from a High Court judgment awarding damages for malicious prosecution
Decision
Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment and damages awards for malicious prosecution upheld

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 3 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.

Good law Followed in 3 cases and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. Citations rising — 4 citing cases on record, 4 in the most recent three data years. 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 Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against a High Court award for malicious prosecution. It held that the appellant was properly found to have been instrumental in instituting the prosecution, based on admissible evidence that he insisted the respondents be prosecuted when police proposed settlement. The trial Judge's acceptance of that evidence and his preference for the respondents' witnesses were matters of discretion not to be disturbed absent an error of law or fact. Where a witness's evidence in chief on a material point is not challenged by cross-examination or rebutted, the court may infer it is accepted. The counter-claim was properly dismissed once the appellant's sole witness was disbelieved.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment and damages awards for malicious prosecution upheld

Facts

The respondents, uncle and nephew employed in Kampala, travelled to Tororo on 9/9/90 to meet the appellant, Dr. Okille, to discuss a piece of land at Kasipodo which they claimed had been wrongly sold to him. After seeking an appointment through a note at church, they returned to the appellant's residence. According to the respondents, the appellant led them into his living room and offered them seats, becoming uncomfortable only when the subject of land arose. The following day the appellant lodged a complaint with Tororo Police alleging criminal trespass and threatened violence. The respondents were arrested, charged and prosecuted, but were acquitted on both charges. They then sued the appellant in the High Court for general and special damages for malicious prosecution. Evidence indicated that at a police station meeting, when the OC CID proposed an out-of-court settlement, the appellant insisted the respondents be prosecuted. The appellant did not testify and relied on a single witness whose command of English was limited. The trial Judge gave judgment for the respondents and dismissed the appellant's counter-claim.

Issues

  1. Whether the appellant was instrumental in setting the law in motion against the respondents so as to be liable for malicious prosecution.
  2. Whether the prosecution of the respondents was instigated by malice on the part of the appellant.
  3. Whether the trial Judge properly exercised his discretion in believing the respondents' witnesses over the appellant's sole witness.
  4. Whether the appellant's counter-claim was properly dismissed for lack of credible supporting evidence.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs of the appeal and in the court below awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Malicious Prosecution — Essential Ingredients — Liability of Complainant Who Instigates Prosecution
To establish malicious prosecution the plaintiff must prove that criminal proceedings were instituted by the defendant who was instrumental in setting the law in motion, that the defendant acted without reasonable or probable cause, that he acted maliciously with an improper motive, and that the proceedings terminated in the plaintiff's favour; in a prosecution in the name of the state the person liable is the complainant at whose instigation the proceedings are due.
Failure to Cross-Examine — Inference of Acceptance of Unchallenged Evidence in Chief
Omission or neglect to challenge evidence in chief on a material or essential point by cross-examination, or to call rebutting evidence, leads to the inference that the evidence is accepted, subject to its being assailed as inherently incredible or palpably untrue.
Oral Evidence — Admissibility of Testimony of a Fact Heard by the Witness
A witness may testify to a fact he heard spoken at a meeting he attended; such evidence is admissible under section 58(b) of the Evidence Act as it refers to a fact which could be heard and which the witness said he heard.
Appeals — Interference with Trial Judge's Exercise of Discretion and Assessment of Credibility
A trial judge's exercise of discretion, including his assessment of the credibility of witnesses whom he saw testify, will not be interfered with on appeal save in very exceptional circumstances such as an error in law or fact, provided he gives reasons for preferring one witness over another.
Separate Proceedings — Impropriety of Comparing Evidence from Criminal and Civil Trials
A judge trying a civil suit is not entitled to compare a witness's evidence given in earlier criminal proceedings with that given before him to determine credibility, as he is not sitting on appeal over the criminal proceedings; the civil trial is decided on the evidence adduced before him.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (5)

  • Uganda Vs Dusman Sabuni [1981] HCB 1
  • Mbowa Vs East Mengo Administration [1972] EA 352 at 354
  • Pike Vs Waldrum [1952] 1 LLOYD's Rep. 431 at 452
  • Zarina Shariff Vs Noshir P. Sethna [1963] EA 239 at 249
  • British FAME Vs MACGKEGOR [1943] 1 ALLER. 33 at 36

Cases citing this judgment (3)

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.

Dr. Bishop N. Okille v Mesusera Eliot and Another (Civil Appeal No. 29 of 1997) [1998] UGCA 25 (22 December 1998)
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.