Wakilii

Katerega & Another v Uganda Electricity Board (Civil Appeal 12 of 1996)

Supreme Court · [1997] UGSC 18 · 1997 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from the High Court's dismissal of a suit for damages for destruction of property by fire.
Decision
Appeal dismissed; the High Court's dismissal of the suit stands.

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 appellants' house and goods were destroyed by fire after Lugolobi, an employee of the respondent Board, negligently connected an electricity wire at a neighbour's request. The Supreme Court held that, although the wiring was negligent, the appellants failed to prove Lugolobi was acting within the scope of his employment. Because the pleadings alleged the connection was done in the course of his employment and the Board denied it, the onus of proof lay on the appellants. The facts that he wore the Board's overalls, came in daylight and used Board materials did not establish scope of employment, so vicarious liability was not made out. Appeal dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; the High Court's dismissal of the suit stands.

Facts

The second appellant owned a house at a trading centre. A neighbour, Sebagala, who had an adjacent building and wanted electricity for his house, contacted Lugolobi, an employee of the respondent, the Uganda Electricity Board. Lugolobi connected an electricity wire from a supply pole and passed it over the roof of the appellants' corrugated-iron premises to Sebagala's house, leaving wire lying on the appellants' roof. On 12 November 1991, when power was switched on, the wire lying on the appellants' roof ignited and the resulting fire engulfed and destroyed the premises and goods inside. The appellants sued the Board for special damages, alleging the fire was caused by Lugolobi's negligence in the course of his employment. There was no evidence that Sebagala had applied to the Board for supply, paid the requisite fees, or had the premises wired and inspected, nor that the Board had instructed Lugolobi to make the connection or employed him as an electrical technician.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondent's servant (Lugolobi) was negligent in connecting the electricity wire.
  2. Whether the respondent's servant was acting within the course of his employment or on a frolic of his own.
  3. Whether the appellants owned or possessed the property destroyed at the time of the incident.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs of the appeal to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Tort Law — Vicarious Liability — Scope of Employment
An employer is liable for a servant's act only where the act is one of the class of acts the servant was authorised or employed to do; if it is, the employer is liable even though the act was done negligently or with excessive violence.
Tort Law — Vicarious Liability — Frolic of One's Own
The mere facts that a servant came in broad daylight, wore the employer's overalls, and used the employer's materials do not establish that he was acting for the employer's benefit or within his authority; he may have been on a frolic of his own.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Scope of Employment in Issue
Where the pleadings allege that a servant acted in the course of his employment and the employer denies it, the party asserting the master and servant relationship and scope of employment bears the burden of proving it on a balance of probabilities.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — He Who Affirms Must Prove
He who affirms must prove; a claimant relying on presumptions to establish that a wrongdoer was the defendant's servant acting in the course of his employment fails where those presumptions are weak and no direct evidence supports them.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (3)

  • Uganda American Insurance Co v Rugaza (Civil Appeal No. 10 of 1990)
  • Poland v John Parr & Sons [1927] 1 KB 236
  • Muwonge v Attorney General [1967] EA 17

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Katerega & Another v Uganda Electricity Board (Civil Appeal 12 of 1996) [1997] UGSC 18 (8 August 1997)
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.