Kigozi v Uganda Commercial Bank (Civil Suit 12 of 1996)
Observed later treatment
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 High Court 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, provided resources, and directed the manner of work execution. The plaintiff was entitled to special damages for loss of income during the unlawful detention of his vehicle and general damages for false imprisonment and assault.
Outcome
Judgment entered for the plaintiff with damages and costs awarded
Facts
On 7 December 1994, the plaintiff purchased a Toyota Hiace minibus (registration 849 UAQ) from Rashid Sempa for UGX 11 million, paying UGX 9 million immediately. The vehicle operated as a taxi between Kampala and Hoima. On 17 January 1995, five men including John Bosco Ssemwogerere (a senior officer at the defendant bank arrested for embezzling UGX 12.56 million) impounded the vehicle and took it to the defendant's premises. The plaintiff was told the vehicle was connected to Ssemwogerere's alleged fraud. On 10 March 1995, when the plaintiff went to the bank's investigation office with documents proving ownership, he was arrested, detained for the entire day, and assaulted with a cable by Christopher Uchamgui, a CID officer seconded to the bank's investigation office. The vehicle was released on 3 May 1995 after nearly four months' detention. The plaintiff sued for 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.
- Special damages of UGX 7,565,000 awarded.
- General damages of UGX 3,000,000 awarded.
- Interest at court rate awarded on special and general damages from the 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 (HCB 25 of 1977)
- M'bin v Dyer [1967] EA 315
- Muwonge v Attorney General [1967] EA 17
- Nambi Kibirige v Attorney General (HCB 133 of 1990)
- K Fivandas and Co Ltd v Nakadama (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1973)
- Simmons v Heath Laundry Company (1910) 1 KB 543
- Bagnall v Levinstein Ltd (1907) 1 KB 531
- Honeywell And Stein Ltd v Larkin Bros (London's Commercial Photographers) Ltd [1933] All ER 77
- Burgess v Gray (1845) 1 CB 578
- Hardaker v Idle District Council (2 QB 72)
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.
- [2026] UGHCCD 175
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.