Nakirya Ssekataba & Anor v Attorney general (Civil Appeal No. 38 of 2003)

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 held that parties are bound by their pleadings at trial and that the respondent, the Attorney General, could not rely on the absence of statutory notice when it had failed to raise the point as a preliminary objection before, during or after the trial, and only advanced it after the trial Judge pointed out the alleged defect. The Court allowed the appeal with costs both in the Court of Appeal and the lower court.

Outcome

Appeal allowed with costs in favour of the appellants

Facts

The late Captain Francis Mbaziira traded under the name Fanatex Enterprise. On or about 4 March 1999 at Bugoto landing beach, Iganga District, he was arrested by the Uganda Police and prosecuted, but the criminal case was dismissed for want of prosecution under section 117(1) of the Magistrate's Courts Act. At the time of arrest, the police impounded his goods, consisting of 100,000 kilograms of a drink called "ndume" valued at US$100,000, and never returned them even after dismissal of the criminal case. Mbaziira sued the Attorney General under the Government Proceedings Act, alleging vicarious liability for special and general damages for detinue. The respondent admitted the arrest and charge but denied liability for the goods. The High Court awarded UGX 4,000,000 general damages and UGX 560,000 special damages, plus interest at 8% per annum and costs. Mbaziira died in June 2004 and the appellants were joined as administrators of his estate by consent order.

Issues

1. Whether the respondent could rely on the want of statutory notice when this was not raised as a preliminary objection before, during or after the trial.
2. Whether the appellants were entitled to the damages awarded arising from the unlawful arrest, imprisonment and malicious prosecution of the deceased.

Orders

• Appeal allowed.
• Costs awarded to the appellants here and in the lower court.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (5)

• Court of Appeal Rules Directions rule 1(3)
• Court of Appeal Rules Directions rule 96
• Court of Appeal Rules Directions rule 97(1)
• Magistrate's Courts Act Cap 16 s.117(1)
• Government Proceedings Act

Cases cited (5)

• David Kabunga Vs Leonin Karyeija and 2 Others, Civil Application No. 19 of 2991 (unreported)
• J.K. Patel v Spear Motors Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1991)
• Jovelyn Barugahare v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 28 of 1993)
• Kiboro v Posts and Telecommunications Corporation [1974] EA 155
• Muller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372

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.

• Amatheon Agri Uganda Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (TAT Application 7 of 2021)

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