Komakech v Attorney General (Civil Suit No.021 of 2001)

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.

Holding

Held that a suit under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act against the Government is not time-barred when brought within two years under the Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, which impliedly repeals the 12-month limitation in section 6(3) of the Law Reform Act. The State is vicariously liable for the fatal shooting of a civilian by a UPDF soldier providing security at an IDP camp, even where the soldier's act was unauthorised and criminal, because it occurred within the general course and scope of employment. Damages awarded for loss of dependency.

Outcome

Judgment for plaintiff with damages awarded for loss of dependency and distributed among beneficiaries

Facts

On 22 September 2005, at Ongako IDP Camp, Gulu District, the deceased Benson Ojok was shot dead by Private Openytho Benson of the UPDF, attached to Ongako Military Detach. The shooting was without known reason but occurred in the general course of the army protecting civilians against the Lord's Resistance Army rebels. After the shooting, Private Openytho fled into hiding and was subsequently killed by UPDF soldiers when he opened fire on them. The deceased was a farmer and businessman running a shop and bar at Ongako Trading Centre. He left behind two wives, seven children, and his mother. The plaintiff, the deceased's brother, sued the Attorney General under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act claiming damages on behalf of the deceased's family.

Issues

1. Whether the suit is time barred.
2. Whether the defendant is vicariously responsible for the death of the deceased.
3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

• Judgment entered for the plaintiff against the defendant for general damages for loss of dependency in the sum of UGX 50,000,000.
• The sum awarded to be distributed to named beneficiaries as follows: each of seven minor children to receive UGX 6,000,000; each of two widows to receive UGX 500,000; the mother of the deceased to receive UGX 500,000; and the plaintiff to receive UGX 500,000.
• Sums payable to minor children to be paid jointly to Kidega Michael and the mother of each child, with a bank account to be opened jointly and funds used solely for education and upkeep of the child.
• Sums allotted to adult beneficiaries to be paid directly to them.
• Sums awarded to carry interest at 20% per annum from date of judgment until payment in full.
• Plaintiff awarded costs of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (5)

• Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act Cap.79 s.5
• Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act Cap.79 s.6
• Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act Cap.79 s.6(3)
• Limitation Act Cap.80 s.3(1)
• Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act Cap.72 s.3

Cases cited (2)

• Lydia Agnes Mujaju v Makerere University and Another (HCCS No. 548 of 2001)
• Muwonge v Attorney General [1967] EA 17

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.

• Kyobe Samuel and Others v Ssenkubuge Moses (Civil Suit No. 65 of 2025)

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