Lutaya v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 49 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

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal against the High Court's dismissal of his suit for trespass to land. The appellant claimed soldiers deployed at Mpoma Satellite Station trespassed on his land and destroyed timber. The Court held that for vicarious liability under Muwonge v Attorney General, the servant's acts must be a manner of carrying out what he was employed to do, or done under orders. There was no cogent evidence the soldiers were ordered or employed to cut poles, collect firewood or burn charcoal; the commander's reported statement was hearsay and not proof of any order. The respondent was therefore not vicariously liable, and the appeal failed.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; High Court dismissal of the suit upheld

Facts

The appellant was the registered proprietor of leasehold land at Kiyagga in Mukono District. He sued the Attorney General in the High Court for general and special damages for trespass, alleging that about 600 National Resistance Army (NRA), now UPDF, soldiers deployed at Mpoma Satellite Station trespassed on his land in February 1995 and caused substantial damage to his farm and forest cover. He alleged the soldiers cut down and removed timber from his exclusive demarcated forest for constructing shelters, firewood and charcoal burning. When the appellant complained to the Local Commander, the commander said the soldiers wanted shelter and that the men were sent by orders from above. He also complained to Brig. Sam Nanvumba, a former Army Chief of Staff, who tasked the relevant Unit Commander but did not recall the response. The High Court found the respondent not vicariously liable and dismissed the suit. The appellant appealed.

Issues

1. Whether the respondent was vicariously liable for the acts of trespass committed by the soldiers on the appellant's land.
2. Whether the trial judge correctly applied the principle of vicarious liability stated in Muwonge v Attorney General.
3. Whether the evidence established that the soldiers' acts were committed in the course of their employment.

Orders

• Appeal dismissed.
• No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (1)

• Rules of the Court of Appeal rule 99(3)

Cases cited (1)

• 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.

• A.K.P.M. Lutaya v Attorney General (Civil Appeal 10 of 2002)

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