Wakilii

Fred Hereri v The Attorney General of Uganda (High Court Civil Suit No. 42 of 1995)

High Court · [2001] UGHC 136 · 2001 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for damages for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment, proceeding ex-parte after defendant failed to file defence or appear
Decision
Judgment entered for plaintiff with damages and costs awarded

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 plaintiff was unlawfully arrested and falsely imprisoned by UPDF soldiers for 41 days. The burden shifted to the defendant to justify the arrest and imprisonment, which the defendant failed to discharge. The soldiers were acting within the scope of their duties despite the unlawfulness of their actions. The plaintiff was awarded special damages of UGX 5,000, general damages of UGX 3,500,000, and exemplary damages of UGX 1,500,000 for the oppressive, arbitrary and unconstitutional conduct.

Outcome

Judgment entered for plaintiff with damages and costs awarded

Facts

The plaintiff lived at Ahakabare, Kyengando, Nyamarebe, Ibanda in Mbarara District and had a land dispute with his brother Yonasan Bikade, which the plaintiff won in the LC Court. On 9 July 1995, at about 8:00 a.m., Yonasan Bikade appeared at the plaintiff's home accompanied by four uniformed and armed UPDF soldiers. The soldiers arrested the plaintiff, handcuffed him, and demanded UGX 5,000 as transport refund, which he gave them. They then walked him 7 miles to the 19th Battalion barracks at Bihanga, where he was detained for 41 days until 17 August 1995. Following issuance of a writ of habeas corpus by the High Court, the plaintiff was moved to Mbarara Police Station and released on 18 August 1995. During detention, the plaintiff was beaten daily for the first 10 days, forced to do hard labour, starved with food offered only once a day and not fit for human consumption, and ordered to sleep naked on a bare floor onto which water had been poured. The defendant, sued in representative capacity, did not file a defence or appear at hearings 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.
  • Order awarding UGX 5,000 to the plaintiff as special damages.
  • Order awarding UGX 3,500,000 as general damages.
  • Order awarding UGX 1,500,000 as exemplary damages.
  • Order awarding the costs of this suit to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Tort Law — False Imprisonment — Burden of Proof — Prima Facie Case
In an action for false imprisonment, the basis of the action is the mere imprisonment itself. The plaintiff does not have to prove that the imprisonment was malicious or unlawful. Once the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case and proves that he or she was imprisoned by the defendant, the burden shifts to the defendant to justify the arrest and imprisonment.
Administrative Law — Vicarious Liability of Government — Servants Acting Within Scope of Duties
Where soldiers arrest and detain a person while in uniform and armed, and subsequently imprison the person in military barracks where he is treated as a prisoner for all purposes, the soldiers are acting within the scope of their duties even though their actions are unlawful, rendering the government vicariously liable.
Damages & Quantum — Special Damages — Strict Proof Required
Special damages are only awardable in instances where they have been strictly proved. A claim for lost earnings must be supported by evidence of actual ownership of income-generating assets and evidence of sales made or losses incurred; such facts cannot simply be assumed.
Damages & Quantum — Exemplary Damages — Oppressive, Arbitrary or Unconstitutional Conduct by Government Servants
Exemplary damages are awarded where the act complained of was oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional, if done by a servant of the government. Exemplary damages are a punishment for high-handedness and are not compensatory in nature. Where a person is arrested by soldiers without due authority and imprisoned for 41 days without charges being preferred, breaching constitutional rights to liberty and security of person, the conduct is sufficiently oppressive, arbitrary and unconstitutional to warrant exemplary damages.
Civil Procedure — Adjournments — Improper Methods — Seeking Adjournment by Note or Letter
Seeking an adjournment by telephone, letter or a note does not constitute an appropriate method of applying for an adjournment. An adjournment cannot be granted on the basis of such a note.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (8)

  • Bvamani (Uganda) Ltd v L. Sserwanga (1975) HCB 86
  • Attorney General v Ssengendo (1972) E.A. 356
  • Ssebunva v Attorney General (1980) HCB 69
  • Dumbell v Roberts and Others (1944) 1 All E.R. 326
  • Sekaddu v Ssebadduka (1968) E.A. 213
  • Rookes v Barnard (1964) A.C. 1112
  • Nsaba Buturo v Munnansi Newspaper (1982) HCB 134
  • Yakobo Ovaka and 4 Others v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 20 of 1990)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Fred Hereri v The Attorney General of Uganda (High Court Civil Suit No. 42 of 1995) [2001] UGHC 136 (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.