Ojulo Richard v Attorney General and Another (Civil Suit No. 0016 of 2022)

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

Held that the 2nd defendant unlawfully shot the plaintiff three times without legal justification. The Attorney General was not vicariously liable because the 2nd defendant acted in furtherance of his own private purpose, independent of and unconnected with his duty to effect arrests. The plaintiff was awarded general damages of UGX 50,000,000, punitive damages of UGX 1,000,000, and special damages of UGX 21,892,500 against the 2nd defendant only, with interest at 18% per annum from judgment until payment in full.

Outcome

Plaintiff awarded damages totalling UGX 72,892,500 plus interest against the 2nd defendant; Attorney General not held liable

Facts

On 8 May 2014, the plaintiff, a staff member of the Electoral Commission deployed as a sub-county supervisor, was returning home on his government motorcycle after charging laptops for the national identification card registration exercise. Three police officers followed him to his home. The 2nd defendant, a police officer, held the plaintiff by the belt, a scuffle ensued, and the 2nd defendant shot the plaintiff three times at close range without disclosing any reason. Two bullets struck one leg and one struck the stomach. The 2nd defendant then phoned someone and said he had killed a thief. The plaintiff's father and neighbours responded to the gunshots. The plaintiff survived but suffered permanent and partial disability. The 2nd defendant was later acquitted of attempted murder in criminal proceedings. The 2nd defendant did not file a defence in the civil suit and the matter proceeded ex parte against him.

Issues

1. Whether the 2nd defendant unlawfully shot the plaintiff.
2. Whether the 1st defendant is vicariously liable for any act of the 2nd defendant.
3. What remedies are available to the plaintiff.

Orders

• Declaration granted that the 2nd defendant's actions were in breach of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995, the Police Act, and Police Code of Conduct.
• Declaration that the 1st defendant is vicariously liable for the 2nd defendant's acts denied.
• General damages of UGX 50,000,000 awarded to the plaintiff against the 2nd defendant.
• Punitive damages of UGX 1,000,000 awarded to the plaintiff against the 2nd defendant.
• Special damages of UGX 21,892,500 awarded to the plaintiff against the 2nd defendant.
• Interest at 18% per annum on all damages from date of judgment until payment in full.
• Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff, payable by the 2nd defendant.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (4)

• Civil Procedure Act Cap.282 s.7
• Evidence Act Cap.8 ss.38-42
• Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995
• Police Act

Cases cited (8)

• Namwandu v Attorney General [1972] 1 ULR 54
• Security Group Uganda Ltd v Hajjati Zam Zawedde (Civil Appeal No. 160 of 2019)
• B.N. Kashyap v. Crown 1944 SCC OnlineLah 46/(1944) 25 Lah 408
• K.G. Premshanker vs. Inspector of Police (2002) 8 SCC 87
• Denis Lwamafa v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 79 of 1983)
• Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi (2000) 1 EA 305
• Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd v Hajji Yahaya Sekalega (Civil Suit No. 185 of 2009)
• Kibeedi Hussein v Hotel Triangle Ltd and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 128 of 2023)

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

• Turinomuhangi Andrew v Chongquing International and Another (Civil Suit No. 16 of 2022)
• Jurua v Create Consult Limited (Miscellaneous Application 100 of 2023)

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