Security Group Uganda Limited v Hajati Zawedde ( administrator of the estate of Tamale ) (Civil Appeal No. 160 of 2019)

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 allowed the appeal, holding that the employer was not vicariously liable for the murder committed by its armed security guard. The guard had abandoned his workstation, breached the company's Code of Conduct, and used the company firearm away from his post to carry out a robbery in which the deceased was killed. This conduct amounted to a frolic of his own and had nothing to do with his duties, so it was not incidental to his employment. Applying Muwonge and Hartwell, the court found the trial judge wrongly extended vicarious liability. The court also found the employer had exercised due diligence in recruitment. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

Outcome

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment holding the appellant vicariously liable set aside, with each party bearing its own costs

Facts

On the night of 16 April 2013, Ahmed Tamale, the respondent's son, was shot dead by Bosco Ogwang, a security guard employed by the appellant company. Ogwang, deployed with a firearm to guard Mukono Teachers SACCO, left his workstation without reporting to his supervisor and without leaving the firearm, in breach of the company's Code of Conduct. He used the company firearm at a place away from his post to carry out a robbery during which the deceased was killed. Ogwang was later arrested in Pader with the deceased's telephone and convicted of murder on his own guilty plea. The respondent, as administrator of the deceased's estate, sued the appellant and obtained a High Court judgment holding it vicariously liable, with awards of UGX 336,000,000 for loss of dependence, UGX 20,000,000 for funeral expenses and further damages for pain and trauma. The appellant's witnesses testified that recruitment involved fingerprinting and police background checks, which had not disclosed the guard's former rebel history.

Issues

1. Whether the appellant employer was vicariously liable for the wrongful and criminal conduct (murder) committed by its armed security guard.
2. Whether the criminal act of the guard was committed in the course of his employment.
3. Whether the appellant was negligent in the recruitment of the guard who committed the murder.

Orders

• Appeal allowed.
• Judgment and orders of the trial court set aside.
• Each party to bear its own costs in this court and in the court below.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (2)

• Civil Procedure Act s.27(2)
• Rules of the Court of Appeal (SI 10-13) rule 30(1)

Cases cited (10)

• Muwonge v Attorney General [1967] EA 17
• R v Industrial Injuries Commissioner, Ex Parte A.E.U [1966] 2 QB 21
• Lugya v Attorney General & Another (1975) HCB 371
• Lister & Others v. Hesley Hall Ltd [2002] 1 AC 215
• Paul Byekwaso v. Attorney General (supra)
• Namwandu v Attorney General [1972] 1 ULR 54
• Leesh River Tea Company Ltd v. British India Steam Navigation Co Ltd [1966] 3 All ER 593
• A.K.P.M. Lutya v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2002)
• Attorney General of British Virgin Islands v Hartwell [2004] 1 WLR 1273
• Wambugu v. Public Service Commission [1972] E.A. 296

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.

• Akampurira Isaac v Biryomumaisho Vian (Civil Appeal No 002 of 2024)

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