The Court of Appeal has cleared Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) of any liability in connection with a fatal shooting incident that occurred on October 24, 2009, at Karuma-Arua Junction in Amuru District, Northern Uganda.
The case, which had drawn considerable attention, stemmed from allegations that UWA personnel were responsible for the deaths of two people and the injury of another during a shooting that took place in the area.
The appellants, Awaka Peter and another, had sought to hold UWA vicariously liable for the tragic incident, claiming that UWA employees were either directly or indirectly involved in the events that led to the shooting.
In a judgment delivered by Justices Egonda-Ntende, Cheborion Barishaki, and Christopher Gashirabake, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, stating that the appellants had failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims. The judges emphasized that for an employer to be held vicariously liable for the actions of an employee, it must be proven that the wrongful act occurred in the course of the employee’s employment and that there was a direct connection between the employee’s duties and the act in question.
The incident occurred at Karuma-Arua Junction, a location in Amuru District, during a time when UWA was conducting routine wildlife conservation and law enforcement activities in the region.
The appellants claimed that UWA personnel had been involved in the shooting, but the defense, representing UWA, presented clear evidence that no UWA patrols were deployed in the area on the day in question. Furthermore, the defense argued that the individuals responsible for the shooting were not acting within the scope of their employment with UWA.
In its deliberations, the Court found several inconsistencies in the appellants’ case. One of the primary issues was the lack of credible evidence linking the incident to UWA employees or its operations.
The appellants had failed to establish that the personnel involved in the shooting were indeed UWA employees or that the actions took place in the course of UWA’s work. The Court also found that there was no direct involvement of UWA in the wrongful act that led to the deaths and injuries. As a result, the Court ruled that the claim of vicarious liability could not be sustained.
The Court’s ruling was a clear affirmation of the legal principles governing employer liability. The judgment underscored the necessity of proving that the wrongful act was committed during the course of an employee’s employment, and that the employer’s operations or duties were directly related to the wrongful act. The justices ruled that the appellants had failed to meet this threshold, and thus, UWA could not be held vicariously liable for the shooting incident.
In response to the ruling, UWA expressed respect for the judicial process and welcomed the decision. In a statement, the Authority made it clear that while the tragic incident had deeply affected the families of the victims and the broader community, the Court’s decision upheld the principles of fairness and justice. UWA emphasized that the ruling reaffirmed its commitment to maintaining the highest standards of wildlife conservation and law enforcement in Uganda.
The Authority also reiterated its dedication to fostering peaceful coexistence between wildlife and local communities. UWA works closely with local authorities, security agencies, and conservation partners to safeguard Uganda’s natural heritage and ensure that the rights and safety of both people and wildlife are respected. The organization stressed that it remains committed to promoting law and order, ensuring that such incidents do not tarnish its efforts to protect both the environment and the public.
Although the case had reached its conclusion, UWA acknowledged that it would continue to work with local communities, security agencies, and other stakeholders to prevent future incidents and strengthen its conservation programs.
UWA’s spokesperson Bashir Hangi stated, “We continue to focus on improving our operational processes, collaborating with our partners, and ensuring that the safety of both our staff and the communities we work with remains a top priority.”
The Court of Appeal’s ruling, which upheld the decision of the High Court, marked the end of the legal proceedings in this case. Both parties were ordered to bear their own costs, as is often the case in civil matters where the Court finds no merit in the appeal. For UWA, the case was not just about the legal outcome but also about reaffirming its role in Uganda’s conservation efforts and its responsibility to uphold the law.
Do you have a story in your community or an opinion to share with us: Email us at Submit an Article
