Wakilii

Tusubira v Anguma (CIVIL SUIT NO. 328 OF 2012)

High Court · [2020] UGHCCD 19 · 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 personal injuries caused by negligence
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff with damages awarded for injuries caused by the 2nd defendant's employee acting in the course of employment

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

The High Court held the 2nd defendant employer vicariously liable for the tortious shooting committed by its security guard employee. The court found the guard acted within the course of employment while deployed at the employer's client premises, dressed in the employer's uniform, and using the employer's firearm. The court awarded special damages of UGX 50,540,000, general damages of UGX 20,000,000, exemplary damages of UGX 5,000,000, interest at 10% on special damages from filing date, and costs to the plaintiff.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff with damages awarded for injuries caused by the 2nd defendant's employee acting in the course of employment

Facts

On 24 November 2008 at approximately 5:15am, the plaintiff was shot by the 1st defendant, a security guard employed by the 2nd defendant, while the plaintiff was on his way to work. The 1st defendant was deployed by the 2nd defendant to guard Cheap Hardware at Kasubi Zone 3, Kampala District, where the incident occurred. The plaintiff was admitted to Mulago Hospital and underwent surgical toilette. The 1st defendant was arrested, charged, and convicted of attempted murder in Criminal Case No. 1423 of 2008, receiving a five-year sentence. The 1st defendant died in hospital on 18 November 2011 while serving his sentence. At the material time, the 1st defendant was dressed in the 2nd defendant's uniform bearing the word 'securico' and used a firearm belonging to the 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant defended on grounds that the guard was acting on a frolic of his own.

Issues

  1. Whether the 2nd defendant is liable for the actions of the 1st defendant.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The 2nd defendant is vicariously liable for the actions of the 1st defendant.
  • The plaintiff is awarded special damages of UGX 50,540,000.
  • The plaintiff is awarded general damages of UGX 20,000,000.
  • The plaintiff is awarded exemplary damages of UGX 5,000,000.
  • The plaintiff is awarded interest at 10% per annum on special damages from the date of filing the suit until payment in full.
  • Costs awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Vicarious Liability — Employer Liability for Employee's Tortious Acts — Course of Employment
An employer is vicariously liable for the tortious acts of an employee committed within the course of employment, even where the acts are deliberate, wanton, negligent, criminal, or for the employee's own benefit, provided the acts constitute a manner of carrying out what the employee was employed to do.
Burden of Proof — Employment Relationship — Uncontroverted Evidence
Where a plaintiff adduces evidence of an employer-employee relationship and the defendant leads no evidence to contradict the plaintiff's testimony and fails to challenge it during cross-examination, the plaintiff's evidence stands uncontroverted and the court may find the relationship established.
Special Damages — Proof Requirements — Medical Expenses
Special damages must not only be specifically pleaded but must also be strictly proved. Documentary evidence in the form of receipts constitutes sufficient proof of medical expenses incurred for treatment of injuries.
Exemplary Damages — Rationale and Limits — Wanton Conduct
Exemplary damages serve as both a punitive measure and a deterrent against the commission of similar wanton and negligent acts. An award of exemplary damages should not be excessive and must not exceed what would likely have been imposed in criminal proceedings if the conduct were criminal. All circumstances of the case must be taken into account.

Cases cited (7)

  • Stevenson, Jordan and Harrison Ltd v McDonald and Evans (1952) 1 TLR
  • Paul Byekwaso v Attorney General (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2002)
  • Muwonge v Attorney General [1967] EA 17
  • Borham-Carter v Hyde Park Hotel [1948] 64 TLR
  • Obongo v Municipal Council of Kisumu [1971] EA 91
  • O'Connor v Hewiston [1979] Crim LR 46 (CA)
  • Archer v Brown [1985] QB 401

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Tusubira v Anguma (CIVIL SUIT NO. 328 OF 2012) [2020] UGHCCD 19 (13 March 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.