KAMPALA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY

FACULTY: SCHOOL OF LAW

COURSE: BACHELORS OF LAW – WEEKEND

COURSE UNIT: NATURE & HISTORY OF TORTS

COURSE CODE: LLB 2101

LECTURER: COUNSEL BRENDA NYAPINDI

DATE OF SUBMISSION:
ASSIGNMENT
TRESPASS TO PERSONS

GROUP TWO (1) MEMBERS

NO. NAME REGISTRATION NO. SIGNATURE

1. ALUM ZAMBA DORCUS 2021-08-05484

2. ATUKUNDAH ANNET 2021-08-08267

3. KAYIMA DEO

4. MIIRO ALEXANDRIA 2021-08-06382

5. MPUMBU JULIUS 2021-08-05206

6. NALUWU TEDDY

7. NAMAATO SOPHIA 2022-01-09258

8. NAKIMULI KEVIN 2012-08-07388

9. SSEBUMA JOHN 2021-08-09543

10. SEKIBUULE BRIAN

OVERVIEW
A tort is a civil wrong for which the remedy is a common law action for unliquidated
(unspecified/unquantified) damages and which is not exclusively the breach of a contract or the breach of a
trust or other equitable obligation. (See pages 14-15 of SALMOND AND HEUSTON ON THE LAW OF
TORTS, 26TH EDITION)

Tortuous Liability arises from the breach of duty primarily fixed by law; this duty is towards persons
generally and its breach is redressible by an action for unliquidated damages. One who sustains injury or
suffers pecuniary damage as the result of tortuous conduct is known as the plaintiff, and the person who is
responsible for inflicting the injury and incurs liability for the damage is the defendant or tortfeasor.

Tort versus Criminal Law; Proceedings in a tort are civil, and the purpose is to enforce some right claimed
by the plaintiff as against the defendant. Criminal proceedings on the hand aim at achieving the objective of
punishing the Accused for some act of which s/he is accused.

The distinction between tort and contract is that the duties in tort are primarily fixed by law, while in
contract are fixed by the parties themselves. For example, in tort, a person would say as: I am under a duty
not to assault you, not to slander you, not to trespass on your land, because the law says I am under such a
duty and not because I have agreed to undertake such a duty.

Trespass in General; there are three major categories of trespass; trespass to person, trespass to goods and
trespass to land. The distinction between trespass in law of torts and trespass in criminal law are the
remedies available, the legal provision and not all defences cut across but rather a few. Trespass in general
are crimes as well as torts. Trespass in Criminal law relates to the establishment of a right, or a recognition
that the defendant acted unlawfully while as Trespass in Torts is generally on adequate compensation

Trespass to the Person

Trespass to a person involves intentional and direct interference with a person's body or liberty. While
enforcing criminal law, the government can exercise its powers to arrest, detain and prosecute. But in
exercising such powers, individual rights must be observed. For any trespass to pass, there must be a fault
on the side of the defendant. It was held in Stanley v Powell (1891) that an element of fault is required at
least in trespass to the person.

Other common elements of trespass to a Person except the fault principle include; positive voluntary act,
directness and actionable per se, that is; without proof of special damage.

The tort seeks to protect personal integrity, which is regarded as being fundamental that it is protected even
in the absence of damage. In Fowler v Lanning (1959)1ALL ER 291, Lord Diplock held, trespass to a
person will not lie if the injury to a person is caused unintentionally and without negligence on the
defendant's part.

Where the damage was caused by an action which was not intentional, then the proper action is one of
negligence and not trespass to the person. See Letang v Cooper (1964)2ALL ER 292.

There are three main forms of trespass to a person; assault, battery and false imprisonment. The
common element is that the wrong must be committed by “direct means”. Other forms of trespass to
person include; Malicious Prosecution While as inflicting mental suffering will be discussed closely with
Assault. The general defence to the tort of trespass to persons are; Consent; Lawful arrest; Self defence; and
Necessity;

However, it is no defence to say that the intended consequences of the act were somehow innocent or had a
legal effect that was different from the effect which the defendant assumed. it is important that one
distinguishes mistake and accident. Unavoidable mistakes often appear as innocent as do the production of
accidental (unintended) results. In our discussion we will handle the definitions, Ingredients/ elements,
Principles, Defences and the Remedies.
ASSAULT
Assault can be defined as an act of the defendant which causes the claimant reasonable
apprehension of the infliction of a battery on him by the defendant.
In the case of Mlbui v Dyer. The plaintiff long with other four defendant were attacked by robbers
who intentionally fired in the air. Another shoot fired and hit the plaintiff twice. Court held in the
favour of the plaintiff as it caused injuries to the plaintiff and they were granted damages.
NB. Assault requires no physical contact and for the defendant to be liable he does not need to have
the actual ability but rather apparent ability.

ELEMENTS

1. There must be a voluntary/affirmative act or conduct; to cause apprehension of harm or fear,

literally mere words are enough to prove assault but it has to be coupled with some conducts by
the defendant. In the case of Read v coker138, it was held that, there to be assault, there must
be something more than a threat of violence .in other words, Words alone does not amount to
assault unless it’s accompanied by some acts. Assault is not indirect but otherwise and must be
actual but not future date.

2. There must be intension/ belief that the harm may occur to the plaintiff; the intention as
well as the act makes an assault. Therefore, if one strikes another upon the hand, or arm, or
breast in discourse, it is no assault, it is….; but if one, intending to assault, strikes at another and
misses him, this is an assault; so, if he holds up his hand against another, making a fist in a
threatening manner, and says nothing, it is an assault.

In the case of WILSON V PRINGO [1957] QB237. In this case it was held that there was no an
intension to cause imminent harm and the judge judged in the favour of the defendant the
ingredients was not in position to amount an assault.

Initially it was thought that mere words did not amount to an assault. But the words which the
party threatening uses at the time may either give gestures such a meaning as may make them
amount to an assault, or, on the other hand, may prevent them from being an assault.

3.The party has to prove reasonable fear

In this the plaintiff have been aware and must have perceived the defendant conduct as being
capable of offensively or harmfully affecting him or her. The plaintiff cannot recover for
apprehension that someone else will be harmed but rather must have a belief that something
undesirable is going to occur and that he/she personally is at risk. Refer to the case READ V
COKER. The test was subjective. That in order to support liability , the threat or fear must be
imment, hence the threat of future violence is not sufficient.

Defenses to assault and battery

Lawful arrest.
Where the defendant is carrying out a lawful arrest no tort is committed. The precise procedure
must be carried out in order to make an arrest. The arrested person must be told the true grounds on
which they are being arrested- exceptions are in the event where the person to be arrested is
resisting.

Consent; some examples include boxing, sporting events, medical operations.

Self- Defence; Self-defence is a defence where reasonable force is used in defence of the claimant's
person, property or another person. What amounts to self defence will be a question of fact in each
case but the basic principle is that the force used must be reasonable in proportion to the attack.

Contributory negligence; prevention of trespass or ejection of a trespasser. It is lawful for any

occupier of land, or for any other person with the authority of the occupier, to use a reasonable
degree of force in order to prevent a trespasser from entering or his movements or to eject him after
entry.

Defendant acting in support of the law; sometimes an assault or imprisonment may be justified
on the ground that the defendant was acting in support of the law. The onus of proving legal
justification lies on the defendant.

Parental and other authority; a parent is not guilty of an assault if he physically interferes with
his or her child by way of reasonable restraint or chastisement, or therapeutic reasons.

Inevitable accident; Inevitable accident provides a good excuse for a prima facie trespass
which is otherwise actionable. An inevitable accident has been defined as an event over which the
defendant had no control, and the effects of which would not have been avoided by the exercise of
the greatest care and skill.

1b. infliction of mental suffering

Intentional infliction of mental suffering/ emotional distress generally involves some kind of
conduct that is so terrible that it causes severe emotional trauma to the victim.
Not all offensive conduct qualifies as intentional infliction of emotional distress, however. People
in society must necessarily deal with a certain level of rude or offensive conduct. When the conduct
rises to a truly reprehensible level, though, recovery for the resulting emotional trauma becomes
available.
Wilkinson v Downtown 1897

The Elements
If the situation satisfies all of the elements above, the person behaving in the extreme and
outrageous manner is liable for both the severe emotional distress and the bodily harm that results
from the stress (a miscarriage, for example).

1. Extreme and Outrageous Conduct

Clearly, one of the most important issues in any claim for intentional infliction of emotional
 distress is defining what exactly constitutes extreme and outrageous conduct. Extreme and
outrageous conduct goes beyond merely being malicious, harmful, or offensive.

In the case of Twyman v Twyman, the court held that “Married couples share an intensely
personal and intimate relationship. When discord arises, it is inevitable that the parties will
suffer mental suffering, often severe.” Therefore, the question whether infliction of mental
suffering is in itself actionable in the case of intimate relationships seems to be a valuable
question. While it is true that mental suffering is a part and parcel of married life, I
respectfully disagree with the court. Just because there is bound to be mental suffering in a
marriage, it should not absolve a spouse from an increased duty of care on each spouse to
ensure that there is no infliction of severe mental suffering. Such a duty is required of a partner
in a marriage to ensure the smooth functioning of a family which is the foundation block of
society.

Exercising a legal right can never amount to intentional infliction of emotional distress, however
even if the behavior does cause some severe emotional trauma.

2. Intent/Recklessness
The actor must act with intent or recklessness in order to have a valid claim. In other words, the
actor must intend to cause severe emotional distress or know that severe emotional distress is
likely to occur. For example, if someone receives a text message from their significant other while
at a friend's house, becomes angry, and smashes the urn containing their friend's mother's ashes,
the friend could possibly win an intentional infliction lawsuit under the theory of reckless
disregard.

3. Severe Emotional Distress:

The emotional distress in response to extreme and outrageous behavior must reach a "severe"
level.
Some guidelines do exist to help determine whether an emotional disturbance constitutes severe
emotional distress. When extreme and outrageous conduct causes suffering such that no
reasonable person should have to endure it, the court will likely hold that the experience reached
the level of severe emotional distress. The intensity and duration of the emotional distress also
contribute to its severity. The longer the emotional disturbance continues, the more likely it is to
constitute severe emotional distress.

A plaintiff must use evidence to demonstrate their emotional distress to the court. For example, a
plaintiff can use persistent anxiety and paranoia resulting from a Halloween prank gone bad to
show that they suffered extreme emotional distress as a result of the conduct.

BATTERY

Battery means the actual application (use)of force against person of another without lawful
justification, it is immaterial whether the force is applied directly to the person.
The term battery refers to a specific type of criminal charge involving the unathorized application
of force against another body. In battery there must be the actual bodily contact between the
plaintiff and the defendant. Battery is only considered when there is an actual physical contact
without the consent of the person to harm the person

Battery is divided in to two

1. Criminal battery; when there is an intention to kill a person or to hurt the person with an
offensive physical contact in criminal, the intention pays a major role as the action involves
intention to kill a person.

2.Civil battery; when a person has no intention to hurt someone but commits an act which hurts
another person and the wrongdoer had an idea that the act will hurt another person.

In the case of COLE V TURNER, The intentional touching of another in an unreasonable and
violent manner is considered battery, the touching of another in anger constitutes battery it was
held in the case that any degree of touching coupled with an angry mindset qualifies as battery in
the case of wilson v pringle , it was stated that there must be an intentional touching or contact of
the plaintiff by the defendant , the touching must be proved to be hostile touching

ELEMENTS OF BATTERY.

1. The defendant affirmative act; in the case of Innes v Wylie for one to be charged with battery
the defendants act must be positive act, for example when someone punches, kicks and slaps
another person.

2. Intention; the defendant must have the intention harming the applicant.

3. The physical contact; in the case of Collins v Wilock the police officer put a hand on a
woman’s shoulder to stop her walking away. When she refused to co-operate with questioning, this
was found to be battery as it was physical contact. And it was stated that where there is touch to
get attention, it is not battery but where the touch involves an attempt to restrain is battery.

4. The defendants contact causes the victim to suffer a contact that is harmful or offensive

5. The defendant contact with the vitcm is harmful or offensive

DEFENSES TO BATTERY

1 Volenti non-fit injuria; a person who has voluntarily consented to come into actual bodily
contact with another e.g in sports, cannot later complain against another person who touches him in
the course of playing the game.

2. Self defence; a person is within his legal rights to defense himself, but the he must have used
reasonable force in doing it.

3.Leagal authority; a police officer has statutory authority to arrest a person in the preservation of
public peace, here reasonable force may be used to effect such arrest.

4. Parental authority; people such as parents, teachers and others can inflict reasonable
punishment for the correction and benefit of the children.

5. Inevitable accidents, where the act is not caused by human negligence but by the act of God,
force majeure and fortuitous event.

under battery the plaintiff has the burden to proof that the defendant’s acts or contact caused
injuries on him

FALSE IMPRISONMENT

According to Chris Turner, false imprisonment is a tort that occurs when a person is unlawfully
restrained whether by arrest, confinement or prevented from leaving any place against his or her
will. It’s the denying of a person freedom of movement or personal liberty without lawful
justification.

In the case of Meering V Goham White Aviation (1920) False imprisonment was defined as the
infliction of a bodily restraint which causes the confinement of the plaintiff within an area
determined by the defendant which is not expressly or impliedly authorized by law.

The imprisonment is false because it is not right, it is unlawful. It’s a breach of a fundamental right
to personal liberty guaranteed under chapter IV of the Constitution of the republic of Uganda 1995.
The act of false imprisonment is immaterial whether it was done intentionally of negligently.

ELEMENTS OF FALSE IMPRISONMENT

Confinement is not necessary

For there to be false imprisonment, there need not be confinement in a prison or police cell. The
mere holding of an arm of a person as when a police officer effects an arrest in an open street is
sufficient. Thus, one may be confined in a house, vehicle, mine, estate, prison, street, cell or in a
specific locality such as district or province. So long as the restraint is complete and the person is
made to remain where he does not want to remain or to go where he does not want to go.

The intention of the tortfeasor is irrelevant

The mensrea or state of mind that is; the intention or malice of a tort feasor is irrelevant. Once there
is an act of false imprisonment, the tort feasor is prima facie liable in the absence of a lawful
excuse. Thus, where a tortfeasor recklessly or negligently locks a door or allows a door to lock
against another person, he would be liable for false imprisonment even though he did not know that
there was a person in the room or house.

The restraint of a person is necessary

Restraint of a person for instance preventing a person from leaving a place, restraint of movement
or confinement of the person whether in a prison or in an open street and so forth. Thus, the offence
or tort of false imprisonment is committed once the free movement of a person is prevented by any
act without legal or lawful justification.

The restraint must be total

Where there is a reasonable route, exit or means of escape, there is no false imprisonment.
However, it is not a tort to prevent a person from leaving premises when he has not fulfilled a
reasonable condition on which he entered. Therefore, to bar a person from going in three directions
but leaving him free to go in a fourth direction is not false imprisonment as he has not been in a
situation of total restraint.
In the case of Bird V Jones (1845), a bridge construction company lawfully stopped a public foot
path on Hammersmith Bridge, London. A spectator of a boat race insisted on using the foot path
but was stopped by two policemen who barred his entry. The plaintiff was told that he may proceed
to another point around the obstruction but that he could not go forward. He declined to go in the
alternative direction and remained there for about half an hour and then sued. It was held that there
was no false imprisonment since the plaintiff was free to go another way.

Restraint for the shortest period of time is false imprisonment.

There is no fixed period of time that is necessary to amount to false imprisonment. The shortest
period of restraint or confinement is false imprisonment. However, false imprisonment that is for a
very brief time may only attract nominal damages.
In the case of Holden V Chief Constable of Lancashire (1986), the plaintiff was arrested for
twenty minutes and later found to be innocent. This was held to be false imprisonment since his
right to personal liberty and freedom of movement were infringed for the period of 20 minutes yet
the police officer had no reasonable ground for suspicion of the plaintiff at the time of arrest.
In the case of Murray V Ministry of Defence (1988), the claimant’s house was surrounded by
armed guards and searched by the military. During the search, the claimant asked if she was being
arrested, and received no answer. She was then arrested 30 minutes later. This was held to
constitute false imprisonment despite the claimant not being explicitly aware that she was being
falsely imprisoned for the 30 minutes before her arrest.
Herd V Weardale Steel, Cole& Coke Company (1951).

Contact and use of force are not necessary

In committing false imprisonment, it is not necessary that force be used on the plaintiff by way of
battery. There need not be any physical contact. A threat to use force on the plaintiff whereby the
plaintiff is restrained by fear is sufficient. Therefore, an order such as “stay there or I will shoot
you” may be evidence of false imprisonment. The use of authority, intimidation, threat, influence,
order, trick, hypnotism, pronouncement of arrest or request to follow the tortfeasor is enough.
Therefore, where a police officer wrongfully orders a person to follow him to the police station
without giving him the option of refusing to go and the person obeys, the police officer may be
liable for false imprisonment though he never touched the plaintiff.
In the case of Aigoro V Anebuwa, the plaintiff was at a train station and about to board a train
when the defendant called on a policeman to arrest him to prevent the plaintiff from leaving on the
train. The police man then invited the plaintiff to come with him to the police station. No physical
force was used to restrain the plaintiff. It was held that there was false imprisonment. The plaintiff
being asked to come to the police station was not doing what he wanted to do nor acting of his own
free will.
However, in the case of Clark V Davis (1964), the defendant police officers invited the plaintiff
to accompany them to the police station. They however assured him that he had the option of not
going with them. The plaintiff went with them. The plaintiff later sued for false imprisonment. It
was held that there was no false imprisonment. The plaintiff had an option to avoid the restraint. He
acted of his own free will and could not turn around and complain.

Mere words do not amount to false imprisonment

The general rule is that mere words with or without more do not amount to false imprisonment.
In the case of Genner V Sparkes (1704), the defendant / court bailiff informed the plaintiff that he
had come to arrest him. The plaintiff who was holding a pitch fork used it to prevent the bailiff
from reaching him while he ran into his house in a claim by the plaintiff. The court held that there
was no false imprisonment as mere words in the absence of any other act such as attempt to hold,
immobilize the plaintiff could not amount to false imprisonment. Mere words without more could
not constitute false imprisonment.

Knowledge by the plaintiff of the false imprisonment at the material time is irrelevant.
It is not necessary for the person who is restrained to know at the material time that he was
detained, restrained, confined or being prevented from leaving. It is sufficient if he is informed of
the false imprisonment later. Thus, a person may be falsely imprisoned while asleep, unconscious
or otherwise unaware and so forth. The person need not be aware so long as the false imprisonment
is a fact and is complete. Therefore, if he learns about it from someone else, he / she is entitled to
sue.
In the case of Grainger V Hill, it was held that imprisonment is possible even if the claimant is too
ill to move in the absence of any restraint.
In the case of Meering V Graham White Avaiation Co. Ltd (1920), the plaintiff was suspected
of stealing some items from the defendant who was his employer. Two policemen who provided
security to the defendant’s office asked him to accompany them to the Company Office for
interrogation. The plaintiff who did not know what his defence was and not aware that he was a
suspect agreed to the request. He remained in the office while the two policemen remained outside
the room without the plaintiff’s knowledge that they were there and with instructions to prevent
him from leaving. He later sued for damages for false imprisonment. It was held there was false
imprisonment and he could claim. His lack of knowledge of the imprisonment at the material time
was irrelevant.
C.O.P Ondo State V Obolo (1989) 5 NWLR pg 130 CA.

DEFENCES TO FALSE IMPRISONMENT

Lawful arrest
Where the defendant is carrying out a lawful arrest, no tort is committed. The precise procedure
must be carried out in order to make an arrest. The arrested person must be told the true grounds on
which they are being arrested. Exceptions are in the event where the person to be arrested is
resisting.
Prevention of trespass or ejection of a trespasser. It is lawful for any occupier of land, or for any
other person with the authority of the occupier, to use a reasonable degree of force in order to
prevent a trespasser from entering or his movements or to eject him after entry. See Isa Bukenya
V Attorney General.

Defendant actin in support of the law

Sometimes an assault or imprisonment may be justified on the ground that the defendant was acting
in support of the law. The onus of proving legal justification lies on the defendant.
Parental and other authority, a parent is not guilty of an assault if he physically interferes with his
or her child by way of reasonable restraint or chastisement or therapeutic reasons.

Inevitable accident
Inevitable accident provides a good excuse for a prima facie trespass which is otherwise actionable.
An inevitable accident has been defined as an event over which the defendant had no control, and
the effects of which would not have been avoided by the exercise of the greatest care and skill.

Volenti non fit injuria

This is a defence as where a prison visitor agrees to be locked in a cell with the prisoner.

Reasonable condition for release

A person is entitled to impose a reasonable condition for the release of a claimant. This however
may be a question of fact.
In Robinson V New Balmain New Ferry, it was held that it was unreasonable to change and
sustain a case for illegal detention.

Detention for medical purposes

The lawful detention of persons suffering from mental disorders is provided for in the Medical
Health Act 1983. It must be in accordance with the provisions and if the contrary happens, then
there is false imprisonment. This is in pari matoria with Article 23(1) (d) of the Constitution of
Uganda which provides that no person shall be deprived of his personal liberty except for purposes
of preventing the spread of a highly infectious or contagious disease.

OTHERS

MALICIOUS PROSECUTION:

It is an actionable wrong resulting from the institution of criminal proceedings against another
person maliciously and without reasonable and probable cause. According to Black's Law
Dictionary by Bryan Gomer 8th ED at pg.977, malicious prosecution is the institution of criminal
or civil proceedings for an improper purpose. The tort claim resulting from the institution of such
legal proceedings.
In the case of Olango Steven v Attorney General and another civil suit No.681 of 2016, justice
Ssekaana Musa stated that Every person has the freedom to bring criminals to justice. But this
doesn't mean that any innocent person should be brought to justice unnecessarily. It's in order to
check false accusations of innocent persons and that's what the tort of malicious prosecution
intends to protect.

According to Salmond in his Law of Torts (9th Edn), Malicious prosecution is proved with the
following four elements:

1. Proceedings must have been instituted by the defendant.

2. Defendant must have acted without reasonable and probable cause.

3. The defendant must have acted maliciously.

4. Proceedings must have been terminated in favour of the plaintiff.

According to the case of Mbowa v East Mengo administration (1972) 1EA 352 at 354, the four
elements must unite to establish a cause of action.

Initiation of proceedings by the defendant.

The defendant indirectly acts through government agents/officials such as police, and DPP to set
the official process into motion. Normally, merely proving information to the prosecuting authority
would not be enough to give rise to liability for malicious prosecution. The circumstances must be
that facts in question could be known only to the defendant, and this has seriously impaired the
prosecutor's discretion where the information was provided falsely and maliciously. See Martin V
Watson (1996)1 A.C 74.

Acting without reasonable and probable cause:

According to the case of Sekaddu v Sebaduka (1968) EA 213, where the detention or imprisonment
is proved, the onus shifts to the defendant to show that it was reasonably justifiable. A reasonable
and probable cause was in the old case of Hicks v Faulkner 1878 defined to be an honest belief in
the guilt of the accused person based upon a full conviction, founded upon reasonable grounds, of
the existence of a state of circumstances, which assuming them to be to be true, would reasonably
lead any ordinary prudent and cautious man, placed in the position of the accuser to the conclusion
that the person was probably guilty of the crime imputed. The same was re-echoed in the cases of
Edirisa Semakula Attorney General(1976) HCB 171 and Attorney General v Hajji Adam Farajara
(1977) HCB 29.

According to the case of Hicks v Brantley 1897, a right of action exists only when the prosecution
was the result of a desire to injure the accused, but the motive is immaterial if there was probable
cause.

NOTE: about reasonable and probable cause, it's not upon the prosecutor to necessarily believe in
the probability of conviction. In Glinski V Mclver (1962) AC 726, Lord Devlin held that
reasonable and probable cause means that there must be sufficient ground for thinking that the
accused was probably guilty but not that the prosecutor necessarily believes in the probability of
conviction.

Act with Malice:

According to the case of Bosco Wabendo and others v Issa Namara High Court Civil Appeal No.21
of 1999, to act maliciously is to act with an improper motive, not based on good faith. It's upon the
plaintiff to prove that the prosecution was for a purpose other than to vindicate the ends of justice.
Malice was defined in the case of Mugabi John v Attorney General HCCS No.133 of 2002 cited
from Black's Law Dictionary(8th Edn), as the intent, without justification or excuse, to commit a
wrong act, reckless disregard of the law or person's legal rights. Malice indicates that a party was
actuated either by spite or ill will towards an individual or by improper motives.

Therefore, simply put, malice is the defendant's bad motive other than to secure the ends of justice.
For instance, in the case of Olango Steven v Attorney General and KCCA CS No.681/2026, the
arrest and later prosecution of the plaintiff simply because vendors have run away from KCCA's
enforcement officers through his yard, was held to be actuated by malice aimed at showing the
power of the defendants' officials to the plaintiff.

Termination of proceedings in the plaintiff's favour:

It must be shown that the proceedings were brought to a legal end and that he has been acquitted of
the charge. It is enough that the criminal proceedings have been terminated without being brought
to a formal end. The fact that no fresh prosecution has been brought, although five years have
elapsed since the appellant was discharged must be considered equivalent to an acquittal, to entitle
the appellant to bring a suit for malicious prosecution. This was the position of the court in Egbema
v West Nile District Administration(1971) re-echoed in Hannington Mpala v Attorney General
HCCS No.116 of 2012.

Evidence of acquittal can be proved by the record of proceedings and judgment of the trial judge
showing that the plaintiff was acquitted. See Mugabi John v Attorney General(supra). Another
form of evidence amounting to termination of proceedings in the plaintiff's favour is entering a
noble prosequi by the prosecution, provided no fresh proceedings are brought against him in
respect of the same facts.

It's worth noting that, termination of proceedings due to the prosecution's failure to prove the case
beyond a reasonable doubt, will not necessarily impute a lack of a reasonable and probable cause
necessitating the rise of the tort of malicious prosecution.

Can malicious prosecution arise from civil proceedings? This question arose for determination in
the case of Friecca Pharmacy Ltd v Anthony Natif Misc. Application No.498 of 2019.

Conclusion:
According to the case of Dr.Bishop Okielle v Mesurera Eliot and Jacobs CACA 29 of 1997, for the
plaintiff to succeed in the claim of malicious prosecution, he or she must prove that the four
ingredients of malicious prosecution have been fulfilled and that he has suffered damage. In other
words, the four elements must unite to create or establish a cause of action. If the plaintiff doesn't
prove them, he would fail in his claim. Another ingredient which is common to all torts of trespass
to a person is being actionable per se. Even where no damages have been proved to have been
suffered by the plaintiff, malicious prosecution can be instituted as a right. It seeks to protect
individuals from unnecessary