Attorney General v Sam Semanda [2007] UGSC 22 (10 July 2007)

{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;}{\f1\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604020202020204}Arial;} {\f2\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 02070309020205020404}Courier New;}{\f3\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05050102010706020507}Symbol;}{\f10\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05000000000000000000}Wingdings;} {\f35\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604030504040204}Tahoma;}{\f36\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Antique Olive;}{\f37\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;}{\f38\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;} {\f40\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f41\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f42\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);}{\f43\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);} {\f44\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f45\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese);}{\f47\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Arial CE;}{\f48\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Arial Cyr;}{\f50\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Arial Greek;} {\f51\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Arial Tur;}{\f52\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 Arial (Hebrew);}{\f53\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2 Arial (Arabic);}{\f54\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Arial Baltic;}{\f55\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2 Arial (Vietnamese);} {\f57\fmodern\fcharset238\fprq1 Courier New CE;}{\f58\fmodern\fcharset204\fprq1 Courier New Cyr;}{\f60\fmodern\fcharset161\fprq1 Courier New Greek;}{\f61\fmodern\fcharset162\fprq1 Courier New Tur;}{\f62\fmodern\fcharset177\fprq1 Courier New (Hebrew);} {\f63\fmodern\fcharset178\fprq1 Courier New (Arabic);}{\f64\fmodern\fcharset186\fprq1 Courier New Baltic;}{\f65\fmodern\fcharset163\fprq1 Courier New (Vietnamese);}{\f387\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Tahoma CE;}{\f388\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Tahoma Cyr;} {\f390\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Tahoma Greek;}{\f391\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Tahoma Tur;}{\f392\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 Tahoma (Hebrew);}{\f393\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2 Tahoma (Arabic);}{\f394\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Tahoma Baltic;} {\f395\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2 Tahoma (Vietnamese);}{\f396\fswiss\fcharset222\fprq2 Tahoma (Thai);}{\f397\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Antique Olive CE;}{\f401\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Antique Olive Tur;}{\f404\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Antique Olive Baltic;} }{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255;\red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0; \red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0;\red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\* \ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\trcbpat1\trcfpat1\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{\s15\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar \tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext15 \styrsid16401365 footer;}{\*\cs16 \additive \sbasedon10 \styrsid16401365 page number;}{ \s17\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext17 \styrsid16008253 header;}}{\*\latentstyles\lsdstimax156\lsdlockeddef0} {\*\listtable{\list\listtemplateid966717464\listhybrid{\listlevel\levelnfc23\levelnfcn23\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat0\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid-1409134000\'01\u-3913 ?;}{\levelnumbers;} \loch\af3\hich\af3\dbch\af0\fbias0 \fi-720\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080\lin1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc23\levelnfcn23\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid67698691\'01o;}{\levelnumbers;}\f2\fbias0 \fi-360\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440\lin1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc23\levelnfcn23\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid67698693\'01\u-3929 ?;}{\levelnumbers;}\f10\fbias0 \fi-360\li2160 \jclisttab\tx2160\lin2160 }{\listlevel\levelnfc23\levelnfcn23\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid67698689\'01\u-3913 ?;}{\levelnumbers;}\f3\fbias0 \fi-360\li2880\jclisttab\tx2880\lin2880 } {\listlevel\levelnfc23\levelnfcn23\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid67698691\'01o;}{\levelnumbers;}\f2\fbias0 \fi-360\li3600\jclisttab\tx3600\lin3600 }{\listlevel\levelnfc23\levelnfcn23 \leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid67698693\'01\u-3929 ?;}{\levelnumbers;}\f10\fbias0 \fi-360\li4320\jclisttab\tx4320\lin4320 }{\listlevel\levelnfc23\levelnfcn23\leveljc0\leveljcn0 \levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid67698689\'01\u-3913 ?;}{\levelnumbers;}\f3\fbias0 \fi-360\li5040\jclisttab\tx5040\lin5040 }{\listlevel\levelnfc23\levelnfcn23\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1 \levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid67698691\'01o;}{\levelnumbers;}\f2\fbias0 \fi-360\li5760\jclisttab\tx5760\lin5760 }{\listlevel\levelnfc23\levelnfcn23\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \leveltemplateid67698693\'01\u-3929 ?;}{\levelnumbers;}\f10\fbias0 \fi-360\li6480\jclisttab\tx6480\lin6480 }{\listname ;}\listid681278381}}{\*\listoverridetable{\listoverride\listid681278381\listoverridecount0\ls1}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid12671\rsid205674 \rsid545922\rsid546012\rsid666236\rsid917520\rsid946256\rsid998171\rsid1246492\rsid1382592\rsid1399103\rsid1400850\rsid1665218\rsid1790458\rsid1798182\rsid1846884\rsid1910630\rsid1995447\rsid2099945\rsid2189762\rsid2251133\rsid2453494\rsid2505899 \rsid2572101\rsid2572385\rsid2582934\rsid2653466\rsid2689147\rsid2818912\rsid2824228\rsid2907321\rsid3095222\rsid3111969\rsid3155008\rsid3233479\rsid3303250\rsid3553913\rsid3566950\rsid3684736\rsid3812341\rsid4151204\rsid4218603\rsid4357742\rsid4397730 \rsid4398133\rsid4745239\rsid4748480\rsid4945921\rsid5005937\rsid5126390\rsid5253923\rsid5573949\rsid5647672\rsid5720197\rsid5844399\rsid5849495\rsid5865332\rsid5981582\rsid6038718\rsid6233106\rsid6241855\rsid6584455\rsid6627250\rsid6708369\rsid6842018 \rsid6967828\rsid7093432\rsid7170119\rsid7351594\rsid7546592\rsid7763387\rsid7828661\rsid8001182\rsid8076720\rsid8260063\rsid8265673\rsid8399077\rsid8480841\rsid8524996\rsid8609173\rsid8617111\rsid8937082\rsid9110808\rsid9133204\rsid9133872\rsid9140834 \rsid9251355\rsid9267611\rsid9569098\rsid9600032\rsid9726256\rsid9770939\rsid9853369\rsid10046850\rsid10189192\rsid10430428\rsid10558977\rsid10638994\rsid10828651\rsid10968793\rsid11025445\rsid11085365\rsid11155277\rsid11301081\rsid11418633\rsid11609938 \rsid11674138\rsid11750828\rsid11802064\rsid11880918\rsid12010765\rsid12129006\rsid12199858\rsid12210034\rsid12345308\rsid12350290\rsid12454034\rsid12463850\rsid12468985\rsid12799728\rsid12871265\rsid12873264\rsid12919932\rsid12940233\rsid13066156 \rsid13108630\rsid13126353\rsid13246611\rsid13333115\rsid13374361\rsid13501121\rsid13598357\rsid13646977\rsid13727457\rsid13960775\rsid13962747\rsid13991537\rsid14043467\rsid14304159\rsid14353849\rsid14492027\rsid14552882\rsid14687990\rsid14693414 \rsid14710631\rsid14763793\rsid14879052\rsid14883547\rsid14946237\rsid14951647\rsid15013483\rsid15147556\rsid15213768\rsid15235935\rsid15270925\rsid15427238\rsid15537394\rsid15545846\rsid15618933\rsid15873509\rsid15991165\rsid16008253\rsid16017833 \rsid16022644\rsid16126330\rsid16401365\rsid16477628}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 11.0.5604;}{\info{\title THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA}{\author Supreme court of Uganda}{\operator Wor. Jessica chemeri}{\creatim\yr2008\mo4\dy14\hr10} {\revtim\yr2008\mo4\dy14\hr10\min20}{\printim\yr2007\mo7\dy19\hr15\min24}{\version3}{\edmins3}{\nofpages13}{\nofwords2808}{\nofchars16009}{\*\company Courts of Judicature}{\nofcharsws18780}{\vern24689}}\paperw11906\paperh16838\margl1400\margr1508 \widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\hyphcaps0\formshade\horzdoc\dgmargin\dghspace100\dgvspace136\dghorigin1400\dgvorigin1440\dghshow0\dgvshow2 \jexpand\viewkind1\viewscale75\pgbrdrhead\pgbrdrfoot\splytwnine\ftnlytwnine\htmautsp\nolnhtadjtbl\useltbaln\alntblind\lytcalctblwd\lyttblrtgr\lnbrkrule\nobrkwrptbl\snaptogridincell\allowfieldendsel\wrppunct \asianbrkrule\rsidroot7351594\newtblstyruls\nogrowautofit \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid12345308 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid12345308 \chftnsepc \par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid12345308 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid12345308 \chftnsepc \par }}\sectd \psz9\sbknone\linex0\colsx708\endnhere\sectlinegrid272\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid1995447\sftnbj {\footer \pard\plain \s15\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar \tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\pvpara\phmrg\posxc\posy0\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12345308 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\field{\*\fldinst {\cs16\insrsid12345308 PAGE }}{\fldrslt { \cs16\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid8260063 1}}}{\cs16\insrsid12345308 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid12345308 \par }}{\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}} {\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8 \pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \qc \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5720197 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\fs28\insrsid7351594\charrsid16401365 THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA}{\b\fs28\insrsid12350290\charrsid16401365 \par }{\b\fs28\insrsid7351594\charrsid16401365 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA AT MENGO}{\fs28\insrsid7351594 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs28\insrsid7351594 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid16401365 {\b\fs28\insrsid7351594\charrsid16401365 (CORAM:\tab }{\b\fs28\insrsid16401365 \tab }{\b\fs28\insrsid7351594\charrsid16401365 TSEKOOKO, KAROKORA, MULENGA,

\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid16401365 {\b\fs28\insrsid16401365\charrsid16401365 }{\b\fs28\insrsid7351594\charrsid16401365 KANYEIHAMBA AND KATUREEBE, JJ. SC). \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs28\insrsid7351594 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid16401365 {\b\fs48\insrsid7351594\charrsid16401365 CIVIL }{\b\fs48\insrsid11418633\charrsid16401365 APPEAL NO}{\b\fs48\insrsid7351594\charrsid16401365 . 8 OF 2006

\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs28\insrsid7351594 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid16401365 {\b\fs28\insrsid7351594\charrsid16401365 BETWEEN \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs28\insrsid7351594 \par }{\b\fs28\insrsid7351594\charrsid16401365 ATTORNEY }{\b\fs28\insrsid9770939\charrsid16401365 GENERAL:}{\b\fs28\insrsid7351594\charrsid16401365 :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::}{\b\fs28\insrsid9770939\charrsid16401365 : APPELLANT}{ \b\fs28\insrsid7351594\charrsid16401365 \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12799728 {\b\fs28\insrsid7351594\charrsid16401365 AND \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\b\fs28\insrsid7351594\charrsid16401365 \par SAM }{\b\fs28\insrsid11418633\charrsid16401365 SEMANDA}{\b\fs28\insrsid7351594\charrsid16401365 ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::}{\b\fs28\insrsid11418633\charrsid16401365 : RESPONDENT}{\b\fs28\insrsid7351594\charrsid16401365 \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid16401365 {\b\insrsid7351594\charrsid16401365 [Appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal at Kampala, \par (Mukasa-Kikonyogo, DCJ, Kitumba and Kavuma, JJ. A) dated \par 23}{\b\super\insrsid7351594\charrsid16401365 rd}{\b\insrsid7351594\charrsid16401365 December, 2005 in Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2005] \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\b\fs28\insrsid7351594 \par }{\b\fs28\insrsid5720197\charrsid16401365 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid16401365 {\b\fs32\ul\insrsid7351594\charrsid16401365 JUDGMENT OF TSEKOOKO, JSC \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs28\insrsid7351594 \par }{\fs28\insrsid5720197 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11802064 {\fs28\insrsid7351594 This appeal a}{\fs28\insrsid11880918 rises from the decision of the C}{\fs28\insrsid7351594 ourt of Appeal which reversed the judgment of the High Court by Mugamba, J, in which he dismissed a suit of the respondent, Sam Semanda. \par \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12463850 {\fs28\insrsid7351594 Sam}{\fs28\insrsid666236 Semanda filed a suit against the Attorney General, the appellant, alleging that UPDF soldiers, as ser}{\fs28\insrsid11880918 vants of the appellant, had sho}{\fs28\insrsid666236 t at and damaged his omnibus registration No. 600 UCC on 26}{\fs28\super\insrsid666236\charrsid666236 th}{ \fs28\insrsid666236 October, 1999. He claimed for special and general damages and also for costs. The trial judge dismissed the suit with costs. The respondent appealed to the Court of}{\fs28\insrsid11802064 }{\fs28\insrsid666236 Appeal, which set aside the decision and orders of the trial judge, and awarded to the respondent a sum of Shs. 127,420,000/=}{\fs28\insrsid7351594 }{\fs28\insrsid666236 as }{\fs28\insrsid13246611 special damages with interest at the rate of 45% p.a., from the date of filing the suit till payment in full. The Court also awarded him general damages in the sum of Shs. 10,000,000/= with inter}{\fs28\insrsid5720197 est at the rate of 45% from the }{ \fs28\insrsid13246611 date of judgment till payment in full. The court further awarded to the respondent taxed costs in that court and in the trial court, the costs to bear interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from 23}{ \fs28\super\insrsid13246611\charrsid13246611 rd}{\fs28\insrsid13246611 December, 2005. The appellant has now appealed against the decision and orders of the Court of Appeal.}{\fs28\insrsid7351594 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9770939 {\fs28\insrsid13246611 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13374361 {\fs28\insrsid13246611 At the commencement of the trial, the judge f ramed four issues for his decision. The respondent, as plaintiff, called four witnesses. He himself testified as PW1. The other three witnesses included Wasswa Khalid (PW4), the driver, and Patrick Sempiima, PW2, the conductor, of}{ \fs28\insrsid13991537 the respondent\rquote s Omnibus. At the close of the plaintiff\rquote s case, the appellant, for an unexplained reason, opted not to offer any evidence in his defence although he had filed a written statement of defence in which he denied liability and pleaded, an alternative averment in de fence alleging that if the respondent\rquote s bus was shot at and destroyed by UPDF (soldiers), the soldiers were on a floric of their own when the}{\fs28\insrsid11880918 y}{\fs28\insrsid13991537 shot at and destroyed the bus.}{\fs28\insrsid13246611

\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9600032 {\fs28\insrsid14879052 \par }{\fs28\insrsid1246492 There is no dispute that PW4 was the driver of Omnibus registration No. 600 UCC and PW2 was its conductor. It is in evidence that PW4 had driven the bus along the same route from 1995 till the day the bus was shot at and damaged. According to the two wi t nesses, the bus plied between Kampala and Bwera Border Township which is in Kasese District. On the fateful day, the bus reached the place of the shooting between Kikorongo and Katunguru at 6:00 p.m. It was still day time. The two witnesses saw soldie rs wearing UPDF uniforms. According to PW4:}{\fs28\insrsid9600032 }{\fs28\insrsid1246492 \par }\pard \qj \li567\ri567\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin567\lin567\itap0\pararsid14879052 {\b\fs28\insrsid5647672 \par }{\b\fs28\insrsid11155277 \'93I know they were UPDF soldiers because I saw them clearly in their}{\b\fs28\insrsid14879052 }{\b\fs28\insrsid11155277 \tab uniform. It was a clear day. I know their uniform. The soldiers used \tab to be there in the area because there was a detatch nearby. The incident took place in October, 1999}{\b\fs28\insrsid13962747 . I was leaving Kampala for Bwera. When I reached a place between Kikorongo and Katunguru, I saw soldiers ahead of us. When I approached them, I heard bullets hitting the bus. The soldiers were on the right side of the road, moving. The bus was running and the bus was later hit by a rocket propelled grenade. The bus was able to move until it reached Ki}{\b\fs28\insrsid14304159 korongo at}{\b\fs28\insrsid13962747 a military road block. That is where we stopped.\'94}{ \b\fs28\insrsid11155277 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9770939 {\b\fs28\insrsid11025445 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid545922 {\fs28\insrsid11025445\charrsid11025445 This evidence, which was not contradicted, was corroborated substa}{\fs28\insrsid11025445 ntially by the testimony of PW2, the conductor of the bus. The only apparent contradiction between these two witnesses was the number of soldiers. The learned trial judge held that whereas PW2 saw only two soldiers, PW4 saw 50 soldiers. Furthe r, the learned trial judge held that because PW4 said he had once seen ADF rebels in the area, it must have been the rebels who shot at the bus. He again opined that the respondent should have adduced independent evidence to prove that shooting was done by UPDF soldiers. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9770939 {\fs28\insrsid11025445 \par }{\fs28\insrsid12199858 In the Court of Appeal, Kavuma, JA, who wrote the lead judgment, found that the }{\b\i\fs28\insrsid12199858\charrsid545922 \'93learned trial judge applied a higher standard than required by law in civil cases.\'94}{ \b\fs28\insrsid11025445 \par }{\b\fs28\insrsid5849495 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12919932 {\fs28\insrsid5849495 He also found, correctly in my view, that the evidence of PW2 and PW4 established that it was UPDF soldiers who shot at and damaged the respondent\rquote s bus and that, therefore, the Government was vicariously liable for the acts of those soldiers. The other two members of the Court of Appeal concurred. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9770939 {\fs28\insrsid5849495 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12919932 {\fs28\insrsid13126353 This appeal is based on four grounds. Counsel for both sides filed written arguments.}{\fs28\insrsid5849495 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9770939 {\fs28\insrsid13960775 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12919932 {\fs28\insrsid13960775 Although counsel for the appellant stated that they would argue grounds 1, 2 and 3 together, they actually argued them separately. I will consider them separately. Gr}{\fs28\insrsid16401365 ound one was framed as follows:-}{\fs28\insrsid13960775 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9770939 {\fs28\insrsid5720197 \par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11609938 {\i\f1\fs28\insrsid13960775 The learned Justices of Appeal erred in law and in fact in \par Holding that there was sufficient evidence to identify \par Those who shot at the bus as UPDF soldiers whereas not.}{\fs28\insrsid13960775 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9770939 {\fs28\insrsid13960775 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11609938 {\fs28\insrsid13960775 I understand this ground to complain that the evidence available did not establish that UPDF soldiers shot at the bus.

\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9770939 {\fs28\insrsid13960775 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11609938 {\fs28\insrsid13960775 In his written submissions, the appellant in effect, agrees that PW2 and PW4 are key witnesses as they were at the scene since they were in the bus. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9770939 {\fs28\insrsid7828661 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11609938 {\fs28\insrsid7828661 The Attorney General referred to passages from the record of the evidence of the two witnesses to show apparent conflict between their evidence. He criticized the Court of Appeal for its findings and contended that there was no evidence on t he record indicating that the bus slowed down at any one time during the shooting incident to enable the two witnesses observe the assailants at close range so as to identify them as UPDF soldiers. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9770939 {\fs28\insrsid7828661 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1665218 {\fs28\insrsid7828661 For the respondents, Mrs. Basaza Wasswa}{\fs28\insrsid11880918 supported the decision of the C}{\fs28\insrsid7828661 ourt of Appeal contending that the court considered the evidence on the record, which evidence pointed at the UPDF soldiers as persons who shot at and damaged the }{\fs28\insrsid14946237 bus. She submitted that the evidence of PW4, and of PW2, established that it is UPDF soldiers who shot at the bus.}{\fs28\insrsid7828661 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9770939 {\fs28\insrsid14946237 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1665218 {\fs28\insrsid14946237 A per}{\fs28\insrsid1399103 usal of the record shows that the learned trial judge dismissed the suit after answering the first issue in the negative. That issue was framed in the words -}{\fs28\insrsid14946237 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9770939 {\fs28\insrsid12129006 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1665218 {\fs28\insrsid12129006 \tab }{\b\i\fs28\insrsid12129006\charrsid1665218 \'93Whether the plaintiff\rquote s bus No. 600 UCC was shot \par \tab at by the Uganda Peoples Defence Forces and or \par \tab }{\i\fs28\insrsid12129006\charrsid1665218 their}{\b\i\fs28\insrsid12129006\charrsid1665218 agent, or authorized persons\'94. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9770939 {\b\fs28\insrsid5981582 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1665218 {\fs28\insrsid5981582 The learned judge correctly found that PW2 and PW4 were the only persons who testified that they were present at the time the bus was shot at. The judge summarized the evidence of the two eye witnesses, and apparently believed PW2 and PW4 that the people who shot at the bus wore uniforms similar to uniforms worn by UPDF soldiers. The learned judge, however, concluded that it is not UPDF soldiers who shot at the bus, fo r the following reasons. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9770939 {\fs28\insrsid5981582 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1665218 {\fs28\insrsid5981582 No independent evidence of who the persons who shot at the bus were }{\fs28\insrsid1665218 because}{\fs28\insrsid13066156 -}{\fs28\insrsid1665218 }{\fs28\insrsid5981582 \par {\listtext\pard\plain\f3\fs28\insrsid5981582 \loch\af3\dbch\af0\hich\f3 \'b7\tab}}\pard \qj \fi-720\li1080\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\jclisttab\tx1080\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\ls1\adjustright\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid2653466 {\fs28\insrsid5981582 There was no evidence that anybody was arrested in connection with the shooting. \par {\listtext\pard\plain\f3\fs28\insrsid5981582 \loch\af3\dbch\af0\hich\f3 \'b7\tab}After the incident no effort was made to inquire from military authorities concerning who might have shot at the bus. \par {\listtext\pard\plain\f3\fs28\insrsid5981582 \loch\af3\dbch\af0\hich\f3 \'b7\tab}}\pard \ql \fi-720\li1080\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\jclisttab\tx1080\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\ls1\adjustright\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid9770939 {\fs28\insrsid5981582 There is no evidence of a formal report to whoever was in charge of the detach allegedly in the vicinity or any other military officer. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12468985 {\fs28\insrsid5981582 These three conclusions by the learned judge are a little su}{\fs28\insrsid15537394 r}{\fs28\insrsid5981582 prising and in my view are speculative. There is evidence that immediately after the shooting, PW4 reported the shooting to the detach when he reached the road block manned by UPDF soldiers and Police implicating UPDF soldiers.}{\fs28\insrsid12468985 }{ \fs28\insrsid10828651 The judge speculated that because PW4 testified that he had once seen ADF rebels in Bwera, some 28 miles away from the scene, therefore, it is possible there were other persons wearing uniforms similar to those of the UPDF who could have shot at the bus. The Judge clearly ignored PW4 \rquote s ev idence about the appearance of rebels. He surmised that there must have been confusion at the time PW2 and PW4 were at the scene. According to the learned judge whereas PW2 testified that he saw two people shoot at the bus, PW4 stated that there were fi f ty people. The judge did not attempt to appreciate that PW4 was on the steering wheel in the front part of the bus observing clearly the general view ahead of him and, therefore, was in a better vantage point to observe the shooters. That is what his ev idence shows. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9770939 {\fs28\insrsid10828651 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12671 {\fs28\insrsid10828651 As noted already, in the Court of Appeal, Kavuma, JA, wrote the leading judgment with which the other two members of the}{ \fs28\insrsid15427238 Court concurred. He found, and I re spectfully agree with the findings, that the two witnesses, PW2 and PW4, were very familiar with the area where the shooting took place and that PW4 had been driving the bus along that route for 42 months and was familiar with the route. PW4 knew the uni form of UPDF soldiers and was able to describe it in detail. The learned Justice of Appeal opined that the evidence of PW4 }{\b\fs28\insrsid8076720 \'93clearly distinguished the attire of UPDF soldiers from that of rebels. In this area according to the }{\b\fs28\insrsid12671 }{\b\fs28\insrsid8076720 uncontroverted evidence of these two witnesses, there was a UPDF detach on a Hillside not very far from the spot of}{\b\fs28\insrsid16401365 the shooting. There was just m}{\b\fs28\insrsid8076720 etres away from the spot, a road block manned by UPDF and police personnel.}{\b\fs28\insrsid10828651 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9770939 {\b\fs28\insrsid8076720 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3553913 {\b\fs28\insrsid8076720 There were also UPDF soldiers on constant patrol of the area including Katungulu junction where the bus was shot at. As the bus approached the spot of the shooting and when PW4 saw people in UPDF uniforms, he slowed down. This enabled }{\fs28\insrsid8076720 him and PW2}{\fs28\insrsid5005937 early to observe the assailants at close range. It is }{\b\fs28\insrsid5005937 worthy noting that there is no evidence on record of the presence of rebels in the Katungulu junction area or anywhere nearby during the period the bus was shot at.\'94}{ \fs28\insrsid8076720 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9770939 {\fs28\insrsid5005937 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid16017833 {\fs28\insrsid5005937 The evidence of PW4 and PW2 supports the conclusions of the learned Justice of Appeal. As the learned Justice of Appeal }{\fs28\insrsid6233106 correctly observed, it was only during cross-examination when PW4 answered that once in the past he had seen rebels in Bwera which was 28 miles away from the scene at which the bus was shot. This witness never testified that he had ever seen any rebels near or at the scene of the shooting. Nobody else said so, either. There is no evidence on the record upon which the trial judge based his assertion that other people wearing uniform similar to that of UPDF shot at the bus. This was sp eculative opinion.}{\fs28\insrsid5005937 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9770939 {\fs28\insrsid2251133 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1798182 {\fs28\insrsid2251133 On the basis of the evidence available the learned Justice of Appeal found, correctly in my opinion, that it was UPDF soldiers who shot at the bus and that they did the shooting in the course of their duty and, therefore, the appellant i s vicariously liable as the soldiers were servants of the appellant. The first ground of appeal must therefore fail. That also disposes of the third ground.}{\fs28\insrsid1798182 }{\fs28\insrsid2251133 I think that my conclusions on the first ground disposes of the substance of the appeal. But I will briefly discuss the remaining grounds, namely 2 and 4.}{\fs28\insrsid15545846 \par }\pard \ql \li-200\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin-200\itap0\pararsid15545846 {\fs28\insrsid15545846 \par }\pard \ql \li-200\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin-200\itap0\pararsid946256 {\fs28\insrsid2251133 The second ground states that the learned Justices of Appeal erred }{\fs28\insrsid11880918 in law and misdirected themselve}{\fs28\insrsid2251133 s in holding that the evidential burden }{\fs28\insrsid946256 shifted to the Attorney General. \par \par }{\fs28\insrsid10638994 The Attorney General criticized the Justices of the Court of Appeal because of a passage found at page 15 of the judgment of Kavuma, JA in which he stated:- \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid10968793 {\i\f36\fs28\insrsid6842018\charrsid6038718 In the instant case the }{\i\f36\fs28\insrsid15873509\charrsid6038718 burden of proof was on the (plaintiff)}{\i\f36\fs28\insrsid11750828\charrsid6038718 }{\i\f36\fs28\insrsid15873509\charrsid6038718 to adduce evidence to support his assertions that it was UPDF}{\i\f36\fs28\insrsid11750828\charrsid6038718 }{ \i\f36\fs28\insrsid15873509\charrsid6038718 soldiers who shot at his bus. That in my view the appellant did}{\i\f36\fs28\insrsid11750828\charrsid6038718 }{\i\f36\fs28\insrsid15873509\charrsid6038718 through the evidence of PW2 and PW4.}{ \i\f36\fs28\insrsid4398133\charrsid6038718 I am not persuaded by the contention of the l}{\i\f36\fs28\insrsid15013483\charrsid6038718 earned counsel for the respondent that the appellant had to have some more evidence independent}{ \i\f36\fs28\insrsid11750828\charrsid6038718 }{\i\f36\fs28\insrsid15013483\charrsid6038718 of PW2 and PW4 to establish his case on this point. In the same}{\i\f36\fs28\insrsid11750828\charrsid6038718 }{\i\f36\fs28\insrsid15013483\charrsid6038718 vein, I do not agree with the learned}{\i\f36\fs28\insrsid6708369\charrsid6038718 trial judge that the evidence of PW2 and PW4 was not conclusive enough to support t}{\i\f36\fs28\insrsid3233479\charrsid6038718 he}{ \i\f36\fs28\insrsid11750828\charrsid6038718 }{\i\f36\fs28\insrsid6708369\charrsid6038718 he appellant\rquote s assertions. By requiring evidence independent of}{\i\f36\fs28\insrsid11750828\charrsid6038718 }{\i\f36\fs28\insrsid6708369\charrsid6038718 t} {\i\f36\fs28\insrsid5865332\charrsid6038718 hat of PW2 and PW4 to conclusively establish the appellant\rquote s case, the learned trial judge\'85\'85 applied a higher standard than that required by law in civil cases. This cannot be said to be free of error on th e part of the learned trial judge. Once the appellant adduced evidence on the identity of who shot at his bus through the testimonies of PW2 and PW4, the evidential burden shifted to the respondent (Attorney General) to show that it was not UPDF soldiers who shot at the bus. As it were, no such evidence was called and there is none on the record.}{\i\f36\fs28\insrsid15873509\charrsid6038718 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid9770939 {\f36\fs28\insrsid3566950 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6038718 {\fs28\insrsid3566950 In that court, counsel for present respondent (who was the appellant there), criticized the trial judge for the latter \rquote s opinion that the plaintiff should have called some extra evidence independent of PW2 and PW4 to establish the identity of the people who shot at the bus. Counsel submitted that the trial judge applied a higher standard of proof than required in civil }{\fs28\insrsid5720197 matters. The Attorney General (}{\fs28\insrsid3566950 as}{\fs28\insrsid6038718 }{\fs28\insrsid3566950 responde nt in the Court of Appeal) relied on, inter alia, sections 101, 102 and 103 of the Evidence Act for the view that he who asserts must prove a particular fact in issue contending that the trial judge was right in asserting that the burden was on the plaint iff to adduce evidence that the assailants were UPDF soldiers. \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid9770939 {\fs28\insrsid3566950 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4748480 {\fs28\insrsid5844399 It appears to me that counsel for the appellant as well as the trial judge must have had in mind the requirements of the old S.105 of Evidence Act rather than Ss. 101, 102 and 103 of the Act. According to that section,}{\fs28\insrsid3566950 \par }{\i\fs28\insrsid5720197\charrsid4748480 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid4748480 {\b\i\fs28\insrsid14552882\charrsid4748480 \'93 In Civil Proceedings when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.\'94}{\i\fs28\insrsid5844399\charrsid4748480 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9770939 {\fs28\insrsid3812341 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9569098 {\fs28\insrsid8001182 This section specifies a special burden of proof and I think it was not relevant in these proceedings. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9770939 {\fs28\insrsid8001182 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9569098 {\fs28\insrsid8001182 If I may repeat, PW4 told police and soldiers at the road block that it was UPDF soldiers, who had shot the bus. Those police }{\fs28\insrsid3812341 personnel and the soldiers did not react to the report probably because either they just feared or wanted to take time before reacting. In any event they did not follow up to verify the report. PW4 insisted the shooting was done by UPDF soldiers. Like the Court of Appeal I believe him.}{\fs28\insrsid8001182 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9770939 {\fs28\insrsid3812341 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11085365 {\fs28\insrsid16401365 As the plaint}{\fs28\insrsid3812341 iff asserted through PW2 and PW4 that the people who shot at his bus were soldiers of UPDF and as UPDF had soldiers in the vicinity of the scene, the Attorney General took a calculated risk of not calling any evidence to testify about how the security situation at the scene and within the vicinity of the scene was at the time, or call soldiers or policemen who were on duty at the road block to whom the incident was reported to deny such reporting. There was no evidence that at the material time rebels wearing uniforms similar to those worn by UPDF soldiers had been seen or were active in the area.}{\fs28\insrsid11085365 }{\fs28\insrsid3812341 I respectfully agree with the finding of the Court of Appeal that the evidence adduced by the plaintiff had, on a balance of probabilities, established the claim and it was upon the Attorney General to adduce evidence to challenge that of the plaintiff. Accordingly ground two must fail. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9770939 {\fs28\insrsid16401365 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11085365 {\fs28\insrsid3155008 In ground four the complaint is that interest at the rate of 45% p.a. is excessi ve. I think that this ground has substance. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9770939 {\fs28\insrsid2824228 \par In the plaint, the plaintiff prayed for interest at 45% on special damages as well as on general damages.}{\fs28\insrsid2824228\charrsid6584455 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7546592 {\fs28\insrsid1846884 \par }{\fs28\insrsid8524996 During the trial the plaintiff, as PW1, testified and explained the cost of his bus}{\fs28\insrsid5126390 . He claimed that h e was unable to service his bank mortgage because of the destruction of the bus. Apparently he was not challenged on this. He however did not tell court what interest he was paying on the mortgage or why it was necessary to claim interest at the rate of 45% p.a.}{\fs28\insrsid5981582 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9770939 {\fs28\insrsid6241855 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4745239 {\fs28\insrsid6241855 In the Court of Appeal his counsel asked for judgment as prayed in }{\fs28\insrsid11880918 the }{\fs28\insrsid6241855 suit. She did not explain how interest at 45% }{\fs28\insrsid11880918 is justifiable. Kavuma, JA awarded interest at 45% }{\fs28\insrsid6241855 because the case had been dragging on in courts for the last five years, whi ch aggravated the appellants continued loss and damage. So he found interest at the rate}{\fs28\insrsid2818912 of 45% was appropriate. The appellant has justifiably criticized the learned Justice of Appeal for such reasoning since delay in court is beyond the control of the a ppellant. Before us the Attorney General simply asked the court to grant interest at court rates. Counsel for the respondent supported the decision of the Court of Appeal.}{\fs28\insrsid205674 }{\fs28\insrsid2818912 Under section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act, unless interest is provided by agreement and is not harsh and unconscionable, courts exercise discretion in awarding interest. A court is guided by evidence to determine the rate of inter}{ \fs28\insrsid5720197 e}{\fs28\insrsid14353849 st.}{\fs28\insrsid2818912 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9770939 {\fs28\insrsid15270925 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid205674 {\fs28\insrsid15270925 I must point out that counsel\rquote s contentions in submissions are not evidence. Clear evidence should have been adduced justifying such a very high rate of interest. I think that interest at 45% is too high. In the circumstances of this appeal I think that the reasonable inter}{\fs28\insrsid5720197 e}{\fs28\insrsid15270925 st on special damages should be at the rate of 15% p.a. from date of filing the suit till payment in full. I would award 10% as rate of interest on general damages from 23}{\fs28\super\insrsid15270925\charrsid15270925 rd}{\fs28\insrsid15270925 December, 2005, the date of judgment in Court of Appeal, till date of payment in full. The ground thus partially succeeds. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid14693414 {\fs28\insrsid15545846 \par }{\fs28\insrsid15270925 In conclusion I would dismiss the appeal except as to rate of interest. I would award to the respondent \'be of costs in this Court and in the Court of Appeal and full costs in the High Court. Taxed costs will carry interest at the rate of 6% till payment in full}{\fs28\insrsid546012 . \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid16401365 {\fs28\insrsid546012 \par As the other members of the Court agree, it is ordered accordingly. \par \par }{\fs28\insrsid5720197 \par }{\fs28\insrsid546012 Delivered at Mengo }{\fs28\insrsid8265673 this 10}{\fs28\super\insrsid8265673\charrsid8265673 th}{\fs28\insrsid8265673 day}{\fs28\insrsid546012 }{\fs28\insrsid8265673 of July}{\fs28\insrsid546012 2007.}{\fs28\insrsid15270925

\par }{\fs28\insrsid16022644 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5981582 {\fs28\insrsid16022644 \par }{\fs28\insrsid5720197 \par \par }{\fs28\insrsid16022644 J. W. N. Tsekooko \par }{\b\fs28\insrsid16022644\charrsid16022644 JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT}{\fs28\insrsid16022644 .}{\fs28\insrsid16022644\charrsid5981582 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13960775 {\fs28\insrsid13960775 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\sb240\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid8260063 {\fs28\insrsid10189192 \page }{\b\f35\fs28\ul\insrsid5253923\charrsid8260063 JUDGMENT OF KAROKORA, JSC. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5253923 {\f35\fs28\insrsid5253923\charrsid7170119 \par }{\f35\fs28\insrsid5253923 I have read in draft, the judgment of my learned brother Justice Tsekooko, J. S. C. and I agree with him that this appeal ought to partially succeed. I also agree with the orders he has proposed.}{ \f35\fs16\insrsid5253923\charrsid7170119 \par \par }{\f35\fs28\insrsid5253923\charrsid7170119 Dated at Mengo, this}{\f35\fs28\insrsid5253923 10}{\f35\fs28\super\insrsid5253923\charrsid11674138 th}{\f35\fs28\insrsid5253923 }{\f35\fs28\insrsid5253923\charrsid7170119 day of }{\f35\fs28\insrsid5253923 July }{\f35\fs28\insrsid5253923\charrsid7170119 2007. \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5253923 {\b\f35\fs28\insrsid5253923 A. N. KAROKORA}{\b\f35\fs28\insrsid5253923\charrsid7170119 \par JUSTICE OF SUPREME COURT}{\b\f35\fs28\insrsid5253923 \par }{\b\f35\fs28\insrsid8260063 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid998171 {\b\fs28\insrsid998171\charrsid998171 \par }{\b\fs28\ul\insrsid998171\charrsid998171 JUDGMENT OF MULENGA, JSC \par }{\fs28\insrsid998171\charrsid998171 \par \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15213768 {\fs28\insrsid998171\charrsid998171 I have had the benefit of reading in draft the judgment prepared by my learned brother, Tsekooko, JSC, and I agree that this appeal should be dismissed with costs. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid998171 {\fs28\insrsid998171\charrsid998171 \par Dated at Mengo this 10}{\fs28\super\insrsid998171\charrsid998171 th}{\fs28\insrsid998171\charrsid998171 day of July 2007. \par \par \par J. N. Mulenga \par \par Justice of the Supreme Court \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8260063 {\fs28\insrsid15618933 \page }{\b\f1\ul\insrsid9251355\charrsid8260063 JUDGMENT OF KANYEIHAMBA, JSC \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9251355 {\f1\fs28\insrsid9251355 \par }{\f1\fs28\insrsid9251355\charrsid9251355 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9251355 {\f1\fs28\insrsid9251355\charrsid9251355 I have had the benefit of reading in draft, the judgment of my learned brother, Tsekooko, J. S. C and for the reasons he has ably given, I agree with him that this appeal ought to be dismissed. I also agree with the orders he has proposed. \par \par Dated at Mengo, this 10th day of July 2007. \par \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9251355 {\b\f1\fs28\insrsid9251355\charrsid9251355 G. W. Kanyeihamba \par JUSTICE OF SUPREME COURT. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1790458 {\b\fs28\insrsid8260063\charrsid15235935 }{\b\fs28\insrsid1790458\charrsid15235935 \par }{\b\fs28\ul\insrsid1790458\charrsid8609173 \par JUDGMENT OF KATUREEBE, JSC \par \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8609173 {\fs28\insrsid1790458\charrsid8609173 I have had the benefit of reading in draft the Judgment of my brother, Tsekooko, JSC, and I concur. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1790458 {\fs28\insrsid1790458\charrsid8609173 \par DATED at Mengo this 10th Day of July 2007. \par \par \par Bart M. Katureebe \par }{\b\fs28\ul\insrsid1790458\charrsid8609173 Justice of the Supreme Court \par }{\fs28\insrsid1790458\charrsid8609173 \par }{\insrsid1790458\charrsid6627250 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13960775 {\fs28\insrsid13960775\charrsid9251355 \par }}