Wakilii

Llyods Forex Bureau v Securex Agencies (U) Ltd (HCT-00-CC-CS 358 of 2012)

High Court · [2012] UGCOMMC 151 · 2012 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for breach of contract and recovery of liquidated demand with default judgment
Decision
Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff with damages and interest

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 held that a security company is vicariously liable for a robbery committed by its deployed guard, as the breach went to the root of the contract to provide security. Where a plaint claims both a liquidated demand and pecuniary damages, final judgment may be entered on the liquidated sum under Order 9 rule 6 and interlocutory judgment on pecuniary damages. Insurance compensation received by a plaintiff must not reduce the defendant's liability, as the plaintiff purchased that benefit through premiums. The plaintiff recovered special damages of UGX 50,142,000 with interest at 21% per annum from the date of robbery, and general damages of UGX 47,000,000.

Outcome

Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff with damages and interest

Facts

The plaintiff operates a foreign exchange bureau with multiple branches in Kampala. The defendant provided security services to all of the plaintiff's branches. On 15 February 2012, between 5 PM and 6 PM, a security guard deployed by the defendant (Emmanuel Okedi) robbed the plaintiff's Nabugabo branch at gunpoint, stealing UGX 77,142,000. The incident was reported to police. The plaintiff's insurer, Jubilee Insurance Ltd, paid UGX 27,000,000 in compensation. The plaintiff claimed the balance of UGX 50,142,000 from the defendant. Despite correspondence and requests for time to process payment, the defendant failed to settle or file a defence when sued. Summons were served on 3 September 2012 but no defence was filed. Interlocutory judgment was entered on 16 October 2012 and the matter proceeded to formal proof.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant is vicariously liable for the robbery committed by its security guard.
  2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to judgment on a liquidated demand where the defendant failed to file a defence.
  3. Whether insurance compensation received by the plaintiff should be deducted from damages awarded against the defendant.
  4. What quantum of general damages should be awarded for loss of business and inconvenience.

Orders

  • The plaintiff is awarded Uganda shillings 50,142,000/= as special damages.
  • The plaintiff is awarded interest at 21% per annum on Uganda shillings 50,142,000/= from 15 February 2012 till payment in full.
  • The plaintiff is awarded Uganda shillings 47,000,000/= as general damages.
  • The plaintiff is awarded costs of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Security Services — Vicarious Liability for Breach by Deployed Guard
Where a security company deploys a guard to prevent robbery at a client's business premises and that guard robs the client at gunpoint, the robbery constitutes a fundamental breach going to the root of the contract and the security company is liable for the loss caused, notwithstanding that the guard was on a frolic of his own, because the company is responsible for recruiting upright guards to work at such facilities.
Civil Procedure — Default Judgment — Liquidated Demand and Pecuniary Damages in Same Plaint
Where a plaint claims both a liquidated demand and pecuniary damages and the defendant fails to file a defence, the court may enter final judgment in respect of the liquidated demand under Order 9 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules and interlocutory judgment in respect of the pecuniary damages under Order 9 rule 8, thereby entitling the plaintiff to proceed to formal proof only for the assessment of general damages.
Damages & Quantum — Insurance Compensation — Deduction from Defendant's Liability
Insurance compensation received by a plaintiff pursuant to a contract of insurance purchased with the plaintiff's own premiums cannot be taken into account in assessing damages recoverable from a tortfeasor or contract-breaker, because the plaintiff has bought that benefit and it would be unjust for money prudently spent on premiums to enure to the benefit of the wrongdoer.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Assessment for Loss of Business and Inconvenience
Where a plaintiff proves total loss of a sum through the defendant's breach but has already been awarded interest on the liquidated portion recovered, general damages for inconvenience and loss of business due to the incident must be assessed separately, taking into account the actual uncompensated loss including insurance proceeds received, which form part of the damages computation.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (3)

  • Abbey Panel & Sheet Metal Co Ltd v Barson Products (a firm) [1947] 2 All ER 809
  • National Social Security Fund v Kisubi High School (Civil Suit No. 440 of 2011)
  • Parry v Cleaver [1969] 1 All ER 555

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Llyods Forex Bureau v Securex Agencies (U) Ltd (HCT-00-CC-CS 358 of 2012) [2012] UGCommC 151 (23 November 2012)
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.