Uganda Commercial Bank v KIGOZI (Civil Appeal 21 of 1999)

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 dismissed the bank's appeal. It upheld the trial judge's findings that the arrest and detention of the respondent and the impounding of his motor vehicle were unlawful, having been done without reasonable grounds. The Court held that Uganda Commercial Bank was vicariously liable because the CID investigation officers were seconded to and operated under the firm control and direction of the bank for its benefit, whether characterised as agents or independent contractors. The award of general damages did not amount to double payment as it covered inconveniences distinct from lost income. A court may award proven special damages that are less than the amount pleaded.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment and damages award against Uganda Commercial Bank affirmed

Facts

On 16 January 1995, John Bosco Ssemwogerere, an employee of Uganda Commercial Bank, was arrested on suspicion of embezzling twelve million shillings. He allegedly admitted buying a motor vehicle with the money but, when taken to the taxi park, pointed out motor vehicle Registration No. 849 UAQ, which was impounded and taken to the bank's headquarters. That vehicle in fact belonged to the respondent, Deo Kigozi, who had left it with Ssemwogerere while away in Mbarara. Despite Kigozi producing proof of ownership on 10 March 1995, the vehicle was retained until 3 May 1995. Kigozi was himself arrested, charged as an accessory after the fact, and assaulted during interrogation, sustaining injuries. CID officers involved were seconded to the bank's specialised investigation office, used bank premises, stationery and transport, and operated under bank direction. Kigozi sued in the High Court, which found in his favour and awarded special and general damages.

Issues

1. Whether the arrest and detention of the respondent was wrongful.
2. Whether the impounding and detention of the respondent's motor vehicle was unlawful.
3. Whether the appellant bank was vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of the police officers.
4. Whether the award of general damages was justified and not amounting to double payment.
5. Whether the trial judge could award a lesser figure of special damages than that pleaded.

Orders

• Appeal dismissed.
• Costs of the appeal to the respondent in the Court of Appeal and in the High Court.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (1)

• Police Act 13 of 1994

Cases cited (7)

• Makerere University vs. Daudi Kasirinsi (1977) HCB. 25
• Ubbin vs. Dyer (1967) E.A 315
• John Mubiru vs. Attorney General (1984) HCB 46
• Ebeema vs. West Nile District Administration (1972) EA 60
• K. Jivandas vs. Joyce Namusisi (1973) ULR.58
• Selby vs. Associated Motor Boat Co. Ltd & Anor (1968) E.A 123
• Robert Coussens v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1999)

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.

• Centenary Rural Development Bank Limited v Namulondo Hasifa and Others (Civil Suit No. 355 of 2023)

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