Wakilii

Kikanshemeza v Attorney General and Another (Civil Suit No 88 of 2023)

High Court · [2013] UGHC 264 · 2013 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 malicious prosecution
Decision
Judgment entered for plaintiff with damages and costs. Defendants held vicariously liable for malicious prosecution by their agents.

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 court found that Uganda Revenue Authority officers arrested and prosecuted the plaintiff for forgery without reasonable grounds, based solely on an unverified tip-off. The prosecution was later discontinued by the DPP. Held that the arrest and prosecution were malicious and that the defendants were vicariously liable for the unlawful acts of their agents committed in the course of employment.

Outcome

Judgment entered for plaintiff with damages and costs. Defendants held vicariously liable for malicious prosecution by their agents.

Facts

The plaintiff operated a secretarial bureau at Entebbe International Airport. On 5th February 2007, she was arrested by police acting on information from URA officials who alleged she was forging URA invoices and documents. Her business premises were searched without warrant and a computer CPU seized. She was charged with two counts of forgery at Nakawa Chief Magistrate's Court. After calling three witnesses, the prosecution amended the charge sheet when evidence failed to connect the plaintiff to the alleged forgery. The DPP later discontinued the proceedings on 2nd May 2008. The seized CPU was never returned. The plaintiff sued for damages arising from malicious prosecution.

Issues

  1. Whether the prosecution of the plaintiff was malicious.
  2. Whether the defendants were vicariously liable for the actions of their agents and servants.

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the plaintiff.
  • Special damages awarded for cost of computer CPU: UGX 2,000,000.
  • Special damages awarded for meals during court attendance: UGX 240,000.
  • Special damages awarded for transport during court attendance: UGX 720,000.
  • Damages awarded for lost income: UGX 93,900,000.
  • General damages awarded: UGX 20,000,000.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.
  • Interest at 20% per annum on UGX 135,604,000 from 21st February 2007 until payment in full.

Rules and key headnotes

Malicious Prosecution — Elements — Reasonable and Probable Cause
For malicious prosecution to succeed, the plaintiff must prove that the prosecution was instituted without reasonable and probable cause. An arrest and prosecution based solely on an unverified tip-off, without investigation to establish whether alleged forged documents actually belonged to the prosecuting authority, does not constitute reasonable and probable cause.
Vicarious Liability — Servants and Agents — Course of Employment
An employer is vicariously liable for wrongful acts committed by servants or agents in the course of their employment, even where the manner of execution is wrongful, provided the acts were done within the scope of employment. Where URA intelligence officers acted on information, arrested a suspect, and initiated prosecution as part of their official duties, the employer is vicariously liable for any malicious prosecution that results.
Burden of Proof — Civil Cases — Balance of Probabilities
In civil matters, the case must be proved on a balance of probabilities. Both parties have a duty to adduce evidence to be entitled to the remedies they seek. Section 101 of the Evidence Act provides that whoever desires a court to give judgment as to any legal right dependent on the existence of facts which he or she asserts must prove that those facts exist.
Special Damages — Proof — Lost Income and Business Interruption
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. Where a plaintiff claims loss of daily income due to attendance at court for criminal proceedings arising from malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must prove both the income earning capacity and the number of days lost. The court may award damages for proven loss of income during the period of prosecution.

Legislation cited (1)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kikanshemeza v Attorney General and Another (Civil Suit No_ 88 of 2023) [2013] UGHC 264 (23 May 2013)
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.