Wakilii

Nabayinda v Kiwuwa & Another (Civil Suit 27 of 2021)

High Court · [2023] UGHC 395 · 2023 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of money and damages following criminal conviction for robbery
Decision
Judgment entered for plaintiff with special damages, general damages, interest, and costs awarded

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

Held that where defendants were criminally convicted of robbing the plaintiff of UGX 52,000,000, this constitutes conversion as they unlawfully deprived her of her chattel. Special damages of UGX 52,000,000 awarded based on the criminal court's findings. General damages of UGX 30,000,000 awarded for mental anguish and business loss. Interest at 8% per annum granted from date of suit. Order to preserve properties refused where plaintiff failed to provide evidence of specific properties purchased with stolen money.

Outcome

Judgment entered for plaintiff with special damages, general damages, interest, and costs awarded

Facts

On 11 September 2018, the plaintiff, a businesswoman, was returning from Bushenyi after delivering rice to customers when she was attacked and robbed at gunpoint by the defendants. They stole UGX 52,000,000 from her. The plaintiff reported the incident at Masaka Police Station. The defendants were tracked, arrested, and interrogated. The first defendant admitted using part of the money to renovate his father's house (UGX 6,000,000), clear a loan (UGX 7,000,000), pay school fees (UGX 5,000,000), and purchase land. The defendants were prosecuted before the General Court Martial in Criminal Case No. UPDF/GCM/054/2018, convicted of robbery, and sentenced to 25 years imprisonment. After their conviction, the plaintiff demanded return of her money but the defendants refused. The defendants failed to file defences and interlocutory judgment was entered against them.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff proved the tort of conversion against the defendants.
  2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to special damages of UGX 52,000,000.
  3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to general damages.
  4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest on the damages awarded.
  5. Whether the court should grant an order preserving properties purchased with proceeds of the conversion.

Orders

  • The Defendants shall pay UGX 52,000,000 as special damages.
  • The Defendants shall also pay UGX 30,000,000 in general damages.
  • The sums in orders 1 and 2 shall attract interest of 8% per annum from the date of filing the suit until full payment.
  • Costs of the suit are awarded to the Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Tort Law — Conversion — Elements of the Tort
To succeed in a claim for conversion, a plaintiff must prove that they were entitled to immediate possession of a chattel and that they were deprived of the same by the defendant.
Tort Law — Conversion — Effect of Criminal Conviction
A criminal conviction for robbery establishing that defendants took the plaintiff's money beyond reasonable doubt constitutes proof of conversion in subsequent civil proceedings, as it demonstrates unlawful deprivation of the plaintiff's chattel.
Civil Procedure — Default Judgment — Constructive Admission
Failure to file a defence raises a presumption of constructive admission to the allegations in the plaint except as to damages, and where interlocutory judgment is entered in favour of the plaintiff, the question of liability is no longer in issue and only the assessment of quantum of damages remains.
Damages & Quantum — Special Damages — Proof of Loss
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and proved, but strictly proving does not mean that proof must always be documentary evidence as special damages can also be proved by direct evidence including findings of a criminal court.
Damages & Quantum — Special Damages — Investigation and Prosecution Costs
Costs of investigations and prosecution are borne by the State and cannot be recovered as special damages in civil proceedings by a plaintiff who incurred such expenses.
Civil Procedure — Remedies — Preservation Orders
Where a plaintiff seeks an order preserving properties purchased with proceeds of conversion, the plaintiff must produce evidence of the details, location, and ownership of such properties to enable the court to exercise its jurisdiction, and failure to discharge this burden will result in the order being refused as such remedy can be addressed during the execution process.
Damages & Quantum — Interest — Rate and Basis for Award
Interest is granted where an aggrieved party has been unjustifiably deprived of use of their money by another party, and where a businesswoman was deprived of business capital since 2018, an interest rate of 8% per annum from date of suit until payment is reasonable.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (10)

  • Kamo Enterprises Limited versus Krystalline Salt Limited, SCCA. No.8 of [year not stated]
  • Freku Enterprises v Attorney General [1991] HCB 68
  • Wenjie v Nabimanya and Another (HCCS No. 605 of 2014)
  • Wangubo Sefu v Bashiri Magoola and Another (HCCA No. 44 of 2012)
  • Hajji Asuman v Equator Growers (U) Ltd (SCCA No. 07 of 2005)
  • Gapco (U) Ltd v A.S. Transporters (U) Ltd (CACA No. 18 of 2004)
  • Odiya Richard v Okello John Bosco and Others (HCCS No. 45 of 2018)
  • Dharamshi v Karsan [1974] 1 EA 41
  • Mwanda and 3 others versus Tugumisirize and Another, HCCS. No.104 of [year not stated]
  • Amazima (U) Ltd v Mahdi (HCCS No. 453 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nabayinda v Kiwuwa & Another (Civil Suit 27 of 2021) [2023] UGHC 395 (30 June 2023)
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.