Wakilii

Fred Hereri v Attorney General (Civil Suit No.42 Of 1995) (Civil Suit No.42 of 1995)

High Court · [2001] UGHC 100 · 2001 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 wrongful arrest and false imprisonment
Decision
Plaintiff awarded damages totalling Shs. 5,005,000 plus costs

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

Held that a plaintiff in a false imprisonment action need only prove the fact of imprisonment to establish a prima facie case; the burden then shifts to the defendant to justify the arrest and detention. Where UPDF soldiers in uniform and armed arrested and detained the plaintiff for 41 days without charge, the arrest and imprisonment were unlawful. The government is vicariously liable for the actions of soldiers acting within the scope of their duties, even if those actions were unlawful. Exemplary damages are awardable where the conduct was oppressive, arbitrary, or unconstitutional.

Outcome

Plaintiff awarded damages totalling Shs. 5,005,000 plus costs

Facts

The plaintiff and his brother Yonasan Bikade were in a land dispute which the plaintiff had won at LC Court level. On 9 July 1995, at about 8:00 a.m., four UPDF soldiers in uniform and armed with guns, led by Yonasan Bikade, appeared at the plaintiff's home at Ahakabare, Kyengando, Nyamarebe, Ibanda in Mbarara District. The soldiers arrested the plaintiff, demanded Shs. 5,000 as transport refund, handcuffed him, and marched him 7 miles to the 19th Battalion barracks at Bihanga. The plaintiff was detained in military custody for 41 days without charge. During his detention, he was beaten daily for the first 10 days, forced to do hard labour, fed food unfit for human consumption once a day, and at night was made to lie naked on the bare floor onto which water had been poured. On 17 August 1995, following a writ of habeas corpus issued by the High Court at Mbarara, the plaintiff was moved to the 2nd Division headquarters at Makenke and then to Mbarara Police Station, where he was released on 18 August 1995. The defendant filed a memorandum of appearance but filed no defence and did not appear at the hearing despite proper service.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff was unlawfully arrested and illegally detained at Bihanga barracks by UPDF soldiers.
  2. Whether the soldiers were acting within the scope of their duties rendering the defendant vicariously liable.
  3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the remedies which he seeks.

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the plaintiff against the defendant.
  • Special damages of Shs. 5,000 awarded to the plaintiff.
  • General damages of Shs. 3,500,000 awarded to the plaintiff.
  • Exemplary damages of Shs. 1,500,000 awarded to the plaintiff.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Tort Law — False Imprisonment — Burden of Proof — Plaintiff Need Only Prove Fact of Imprisonment
In an action for false imprisonment, the basis of the action is the mere imprisonment itself. The plaintiff need only establish a prima facie case by proving that he was imprisoned by the defendant. The burden then shifts to the defendant to justify the arrest and imprisonment. The plaintiff does not have to prove that the imprisonment was malicious or unlawful.
Tort Law — Vicarious Liability — Government Liability for Actions of Soldiers on Duty
The government is vicariously liable for the actions of soldiers acting within the scope of their duties, even where those actions are unlawful. Soldiers in uniform and carrying arms are presumed to be on duty, and where such soldiers arrest and detain a person in a military barracks, they are acting within the scope of their duties for purposes of establishing vicarious liability.
Damages & Quantum — Special Damages — Standard of Proof — Strict Proof Required
While both special damages and general damages are compensatory in nature, special damages are only awardable in instances where they have been strictly proved. A claim for loss of earnings during detention will not succeed as special damages where the plaintiff has not led evidence of ownership of income-producing assets, past sales records, or actual loss incurred during the period of incarceration.
Damages & Quantum — Exemplary Damages — Test for Award — Oppressive, Arbitrary, or Unconstitutional Conduct by Government Servant
Exemplary damages are awardable where the act complained of was oppressive, arbitrary, or unconstitutional and was done by a servant of the government. Such damages are punitive in nature rather than compensatory. Where soldiers arrest and detain a person for 41 days without charge or due authority, subjecting him to beatings, forced labour, and inhuman conditions in breach of his constitutional right to liberty and security of person, the conduct is sufficiently oppressive, arbitrary, and unconstitutional to warrant an award of exemplary damages.
Civil Procedure — Adjournments — Improper Methods — Note on Hearing Notice Insufficient
Seeking an adjournment by telephone, letter, or a note inscribed on a hearing notice does not constitute an appropriate method of applying for an adjournment. An adjournment cannot be granted on the basis of such a note.
Civil Procedure — Ex Parte Hearing — Defendant Failing to File Defence or Appear
Where a defendant has entered appearance but fails to file a defence for nearly four years and does not appear at a properly notified hearing, the defendant has effectively placed himself out of court and the case may proceed ex parte in accordance with Order 9 rule 17(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (8)

  • Byamani (Uganda) Ltd v L Sserwanga (1975) HCB 86
  • Attorney General v Ssengendo (1972) EA 356
  • Ssebunya v Attorney General (1980) HCB 69
  • Dumbell v Roberts and Others (1944) 1 All ER 326
  • Sekaddu v Ssebadduka (1968) EA 213
  • Rooks v Bernard [1964] AC 1112
  • Nsaba Buturo v Munnansi Newspaper (1982) HCB 134
  • Yakobo Oyaka and 4 Others v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 20 of 1990)

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.

Fred Hereri v Attorney General (Civil Suit No.42 Of 1995) (Civil Suit No.42 of 1995) [2001] UGHC 100 (22 February 2001)
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.