Wakilii

Mawanda and 3 Others v Tugumisirize and Anor (Civil Suit No. 104 of 2017)

High Court · [2021] UGHCCD 78 · 2021 Judgment for Plaintiffs AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for damages arising from wrongful death under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act
Decision
Defendants found jointly and severally liable for the wrongful death of Kibubbu Johnson; damages and costs awarded to the plaintiffs

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 High Court held that the first defendant security guard was negligent in shooting randomly and killing the deceased, and that the second defendant employer was vicariously liable for the tortious acts committed by its employee in the course of employment. The court awarded special damages of UGX 2,760,000 for burial expenses and general damages of UGX 180,000,000 to the deceased's dependants for loss of support and dependency.

Outcome

Defendants found jointly and severally liable for the wrongful death of Kibubbu Johnson; damages and costs awarded to the plaintiffs

Facts

On 12 October 2016, the deceased Kibubbu Johnson was moving along Kasenge Nakawuka Road near Gaz Petro Station when the first defendant, a security guard employed by the second defendant, shot him and killed him on the spot. The shooting occurred during a disturbance involving rowdy boda boda cyclists who had gathered at the petrol station. The deceased left behind four minor children, including twins born after his death. The first defendant admitted shooting the deceased but contended that he was acting reasonably to disperse a riotous crowd threatening to burn the petrol station. The defendants alleged contributory negligence but adduced no evidence to support this defence. The matter proceeded ex parte after the defendants' counsel failed to appear at the hearing.

Issues

  1. Whether the actions of the defendants jointly and/or severally were unlawful in the circumstances.
  2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the remedies sought.

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the plaintiffs.
  • Special damages awarded in the sum of UGX 2,760,000.
  • General damages awarded in the sum of UGX 180,000,000.
  • Interest awarded at 10% per annum on all damages from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiffs.

Rules and key headnotes

Negligence — Duty of Care — Security Guards
A security guard owes a duty of care to avoid acts or omissions which can reasonably be foreseen as likely to injure members of the public, and must not harm innocent civilians in the course of executing security duties.
Negligence — Standard of Care — Armed Security Personnel
The degree of care required varies directly with the risk involved; a security guard armed with a dangerous weapon such as a gun is required to exercise greater skill and care than a person holding a baton, and a person carrying a loaded gun is expected to take more precautions than a person carrying an unloaded gun.
Vicarious Liability — Course of Employment — Tortious Acts
An employer is vicariously liable for the tortious acts of an employee committed in the course of employment, even if the act is done contrary to the employer's orders and even if the employee acts deliberately, wantonly, negligently, or for his own benefit, provided the act is a manner of carrying out what the employee was employed to do.
Contributory Negligence — Burden of Proof
Where a defendant alleges contributory negligence, the burden of proof lies on the defendant to adduce evidence establishing such negligence; where no evidence is adduced, the allegation cannot be sustained.
Special Damages — Proof — Bereavement Circumstances
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved, but failure to attach receipts for burial expenses may be excused where at the time of bereavement it was not possible to attend to details such as asking for receipts.
General Damages — Dependants — Assessment Principles
In assessing damages for dependants under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, the court must balance the loss to the claimants of future pecuniary benefit against any pecuniary advantage accruing to them by reason of the death, taking into account the relationship between the deceased and the dependants, their ages, financial means, and needs.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (10)

  • Stevenson Jordan & Harrison Ltd v McDonald & Evans (1952) 1 TLR
  • Byekwaso v Attorney General (Court of Appeal No. 10 of 2002)
  • Ketayomba v Uganda Securiko Limited [1977] HCB 170
  • Wayuu & Another v Sugar Corporation & Another [1998] 11 KLR
  • Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562
  • Omony v Attorney General & Another (High Court Civil Suit No. 27 of 2002)
  • Muwonge v Attorney General [1967] EA 17
  • Kyambadde v Mpigi District Administration [1983] HCB 44
  • Davies v Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd [1942] AC 601
  • Nsereko Anthony & Another (High Court Civil Suit No. 275 of 2014)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mawanda and 3 Others v Tugumisirize and Anor (Civil Suit No. 104 of 2017) [2021] UGHCCD 78 (30 June 2021)
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.