Uganda Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

Uganda Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page: 2 court collections
Last checked: 18 Sep 2026, 03:47 UTC

Results update automatically as you type.

Judge

Topic

Legal area

Court

Uganda decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters

8 Apr 2020

Tort Law [2020] UGHCCD 50

Akech v Attorney General

Akech v Attorney General (CIVIL SUIT NO. 368 OF 2018) [2020] UGHCCD 50 (8 April 2020)

Court: HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
Case number: CIVIL SUIT NO. 368 OF 2018
Judge: Musa Ssekaana, J

The court found that Byamugisha Robert was a police officer on duty and armed by the government at the time of the shooting. Despite the officer's departure from his post, he remained within the scope of employment, as he was deployed for night duty and permitted to carry a firearm. The shooting was wrongful and unjustified, constituting a tort for which the government is vicariously liable. The court rejected the defendant's argument that the officer was on a frolic of his own, emphasizing that liability attaches where the employee's actions are connected to their employment, even if done ne…

Source excerpt

Vicarious Liability
Wrongful Death
Compensation For Unlawful Killing
Public Authority Liability

Read case analysis

20 Dec 2019

Constitutional Law [2019] UGHC 27

Byabasaija v Attorney General

Byabasaija v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 243 of 2011) [2019] UGHC 27 (20 December 2019)

Court: High Court of Uganda
Case number: Civil Suit No. 243 of 2011
Judge: Musa Ssekaana, J

The court found that the plaintiff had adduced credible and uncontroverted evidence that Stella Kabasinguzi was unlawfully shot and killed by a police officer acting in the course of his employment during the Buganda riots. The state, represented by the Attorney General, is vicariously liable for the actions of its servants under both constitutional and statutory law. The violation of the deceased's right to life under Article 22(1) of the Constitution entitled the plaintiff to redress, including general and punitive damages. The court considered the age of the deceased, the dependency of her…