[2007] UGCommC 66

[2007] UGCommC 66

The court found that the defendant's employees were acting in the course and scope of their employment when they stole the plaintiff's money during the cash in transit operation. Clause 6.1 of the security agreement expressly provided for indemnity against loss caused by acts or omissions of the contractor's...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2007] UGCommC 66
Parties
Plaintiff: Kenkom Limited; Defendant: Saracen Uganda Limited
Court
Commercial Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
HCT-00-CC-CS 134 of 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment
Outcome
judgment_for_plaintiff
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Contract of Indemnity, Subrogation, Cash in Transit Insurance, Breach of Security Agreement
Source Language
en
Commercial and Corporate Tort Law Vicarious Liability Contract of Indemnity Subrogation Cash in Transit Insurance Breach of Security Agreement

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenkom Limited

Plaintiff

Saracen Uganda Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff lost Shs.44,173,900.00 on 12/8/2002 to the defendant's employees.
  2. 2 Whether at the material time the defendant's employees were acting in the course of their employment.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant is vicariously liable for actions of its employees.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant's employees were acting in the course and scope of their employment when they stole the plaintiff's money during the cash in transit operation. Clause 6.1 of the security agreement expressly provided for indemnity against loss caused by acts or omissions of the contractor's employees in the course of employment. The court rejected the defendant's argument that the theft was outside the scope of employment and that clause 5 absolved liability, noting that no evidence was adduced to show the theft was beyond the defendant's reasonable control. The insurance contract was deemed valid despite the lack of the plaintiff's signature, as the insurer had signed...

Court Disposition

judgment_for_plaintiff

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the plaintiff in the sum of Shs.13,500,000.00.
  • Interest awarded at 8% per annum from date of filing till judgment, and thereafter at court rate until realisation.