Wakilii

Nabwami V Attorney General (CIVIL SUIT NO. 117 OF 2015)

High Court · [2020] UGHCCD 96 · 2020 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for damages arising from negligence by a police officer
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff with general damages of UGX 75,000,000 and costs

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases applied in 1 Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

Good law Followed in 0 cases and applied in 1 case, with no adverse treatment recorded. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 Attorney General was vicariously liable for the negligence of a police officer who shot the plaintiff with a stray bullet while pursuing a suspect, causing serious injury. The defendant's inadequate defence was struck out. The plaintiff proved negligence through the three essential elements: duty of care owed by the officer to avoid harming civilians, breach of that duty through careless random shooting, and resultant damage. Special damages were rejected for failure to plead them specifically. General damages of UGX 75,000,000 were awarded for pain, suffering and injury.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff with general damages of UGX 75,000,000 and costs

Facts

On 2 November 2013, the plaintiff was at her home in Makindye Division, Kampala when she heard gunshots. She went outside with her cousin and saw police attempting to arrest a suspect armed with a knife near an internet café. More shots were fired and as the plaintiff turned to re-enter her building, she was struck by a stray bullet in the right side of her neck. The bullet perforated her oesophagus and lodged in her left supraclavicular region. She fell unconscious and awoke at Nsambya Hospital where she received treatment. The bullet was fired by a Uganda Police officer from Kabalagala Police Station during the course of duty while pursuing the suspect. The plaintiff sustained permanent injuries including numbness in her right upper limb and incapacity from the grievous harm.

Issues

  1. Whether the injuries suffered by the plaintiff were caused by the negligence of the defendant's servant.
  2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the remedies sought.

Orders

  • Defendant's written statement of defence struck out.
  • Judgment entered for the plaintiff.
  • Plaintiff awarded general damages of UGX 75,000,000.
  • Claim for special damages dismissed.
  • Claim for exemplary and aggravated damages dismissed.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Negligence — Elements — Duty of Care, Breach, and Damage
To succeed in an action for negligence, the plaintiff must prove: (i) that the defendant owed him or her a duty of care; (ii) that there was a breach of that duty of care; and (iii) that damage which is not too remote resulted to him as a result of the breach.
Negligence — Standard of Care — Police Officers — Use of Force and Firearms
A police officer armed with a dangerous weapon such as a gun is required to exercise a higher degree of care than a person carrying a less dangerous weapon. The degree of care required varies directly with the risk involved. A prudent and reasonable police officer must not shoot aimlessly or randomly in a manner that amounts to carelessness and has a duty not to harm innocent civilians in the course of executing law enforcement duties.
Vicarious Liability — State Liability for Acts of Police Officers
An employer is vicariously liable for the acts of employees or agents while acting within the scope of employment or in the course of the employer's business. An act may be done in the course of employment so as to make the employer liable even though it is done contrary to orders, and even if the servant is acting deliberately, wantonly, negligently, or criminally, or for his own behalf, if what he did is merely a manner of carrying out what he was employed to do. The Attorney General is vicariously liable for the negligent acts of police officers in the course of their duties.
Pleadings — Defence — Striking Out — Inadequate Denial
A written statement of defence that merely denies allegations and puts the plaintiff to strict proof without disclosing any answer to the allegations does not constitute a defence within the true meaning of the Civil Procedure Rules and may be struck out under Order 6 rule 30 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Special Damages — Pleading and Proof — Strict Requirements
Special damages must not only be specifically pleaded but must also be strictly proved. Where a plaintiff fails to plead specific particulars of special damages in the plaint but attempts to introduce a specific sum with particulars only at trial, this constitutes an afterthought and will be rejected. The claim for special damages will fail.
General Damages — Assessment — Pain, Suffering and Incapacity
General damages are awarded in the discretion of the court to compensate the aggrieved fairly for inconveniences accrued as a result of the defendant's actions. The basic measure of damage is restitution: the plaintiff must be put in the position he would have been had he not suffered the wrong. The whole process of assessing general damages is essentially a matter of impression and not addition.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (9)

  • Omony v Attorney General and Another (HCCS No. 27 of 2002)
  • Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562
  • Bendicto Musisi v Attorney General (HCCS No. 622 of 1989)
  • Rosemary Nalwadda v Uganda Aids Commission (HCCS No. 67 of 2011)
  • Borham-Carter v Hyde Park Hotel [1948] 64 TLR
  • Dr Denis Lwamafa v Attorney General (HCCS No. 79 of 1983)
  • Ouma v Nairobi City Council [1976] KLR 298
  • Cassell v Broome [1972] 1 All ER 801
  • 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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nabwami V Attorney General (CIVIL SUIT NO. 117 OF 2015) [2020] UGHCCD 96 (15 May 2020)
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.