GROUP 4

Members

NAME REGISTRATION NUMBER

ODONG GERALD HAROLD CKS21B11/003
MUWANGUZI ADRIAN CKS21B11/085
MUKASA JEREMIAH LUGALAMBI CKS21B11/151
MUZIRA RYAN JORDAN CKS21B11/042
AHAISIBWE PENELOPE PRESSY CKS21B11/136
AYESIGA LETICIA NATALIE CKS21B11/057
KAMUSHABE DRUSCILLA CKS21B11/023
NKUUTU SHAFFIK CKS21B11/104
ERIC MENHA CKS21B11/124
KENJOBE PRIMAH CKS21B11/139
 MALICIOUS PROSECUTION

According to the Black’s Law Dictionary 8th edition page

3041; malicious prosecution is defined as the institution
of criminal or civil proceeding for an improper purpose
and without probable cause.
Mirriam Webster defines malicious prosecution as a tort
of initiating a criminal prosecution or civil suit against
another party with malice or without probable cause.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/malicious%20pr
osecution

It is further explained in the case of Olango V AG and

another civil suit 681 of 2016[2020] UGHCCD 94 in which
it is explained as a tort which is committed where there
isn't legal reason for instituting criminal proceedings.
Ingredients of malicious prosecution

Odungu’s Digest on Civil Case law and Procedure page

5276 highlights some of the ingredients of malicious
prosecution such as;
1. The criminal proceedings must have been
instituted by the defendant.
2. The defendant must have acted without
reasonable or probable cause.
3. The defendant must have acted maliciously.
4. The criminal proceedings must have been
terminated in the plaintiffs favor.
 1. Criminal proceedings must have been
instituted by the defendant.
The plaintiff must prove that the criminal actions were
carried out by the defendant. In the case of Olango V
Attorney General and another civil suit 681 of
2016[2020] UGHCCD 94 the plaintiff was assaulted by
KCCA and law enforcement officials and was arrested
and charged with disorderly behavior. The facts of the
case show us that defendants were indeed the ones who
instituted the criminal proceedings as they unlawfully
arrested, charged and maliciously prosecuted.
The case of Kaggwa V Kagoya & Another (CIVIL SUIT NO.
397 OF 2014) UGHCCD 230 (1 November 2019)further
explains this ingriedent.
 2. The defendant must have acted without
reasonable or probable cause.
• The case of Attorney General V Haji Adam Farajara HCCS
No35 of 1976 defined probable cause as an honest belief
in the guilt of the accused based upon a full conviction…”
• There is an objective test for concept of probable or
reasonable cause and it is highlighted by Justice
Byamugisha in the case of Dr. Willy Kaberuka V Attoreny
General Civil Suit NO. 160 of 1993 [1994] II KACR 64 were
he states that any facts discovered by the prosecutor or
information that has come to him or both must be such
as to capable of satisfying an ordinary prudent and
cautious man to the extent of believing that the accused
is probably guilty
 3. The defendant must have acted maliciously.

• The case of Gwagilo V Attorney General [2002] No. 2 EA 381

(CAT) defines malice in the context of malicious prosecution is
an intent to use the legal process for some other purpose
than its legally appointed and appropriate purpose.
• Furthermore the case of Zainal Bin Kuning V Chan Sin Mian
Micheal [1996] 2 SLR (R) 858 shows there two ingredients of
malice ie; the prosecution was motivated not by desire to
achieve justice but for some other reason, intent to use the
legal process in question for another purpose.
• The case of Olango V AG and another civil suit 681 of
2016[2020] UGHCCD 94 goes on to mention the other
reasons the prosecution might act maliciously these include;
enmity, retaliation, haste, omission to make due and proper
inquires, recklessness, harassment, personal spite and sinister
motive.
4.The criminal proceedings must have been terminated in the plaintiffs favor.

• In order for someone to raise the a case on malicious

prosecution he must have been acquitted in the case
in which they alleged to be maliciously prosecuted.
• The case of Friecca Pharmacy Limited V Anthony
Natif (Miscellaneous Application 498 0f 2019) [2019]
UGHCCD224 the respondent was earlier taken to
court by the plaintiff for an injunction stopping him
from operating a pharmacy in Wandegeya. The court
found no cause of action and hence the injunction in
the civil suit No. 731 of 2017 was dismissed hence
fulfilling the ingredient of the criminal proceeding
having been terminated in the plaintiffs favor.
Remedies for malicious prosecution
• Whenever a party is maliciously prosecuted by another without
reasonable cause and is acquitted as an innocent person by the court
he has a remedy in tort for the damage suffered by him due to such
prosecution.
• In this tort the aggrieved party usually applies for special damages,
general damages and punitive damages. This can be evidenced in
various cases such as Olango V Attorney General and another[2020]
where the plaintiff applied for all these damages for having been
maliciously prosecuted and was awarded general damages but how
ever denied special damages on grounds of a technicality.
• In addition the case of Rowlands V Chief Constable of Merseyide [2006]
EWCA Civ 1772 further explains how courts remedy of damages. Here
the claimant was arrested for and charged with assaulting a police
officer. The court however found her innocent and she later sued for
malicious prosecution and was awarded damages by the courts.
Cont. remedies for malicious prosecution.

• Furthermore it should be noted that the

plaintiff must prove the type of damage he has
faced in order to be awarded this remedy.
• Examples of types of damages one can suffer
include; damage to reputation, depravation of
liberty or damage to a person/property arising
from the malicious prosecution as explained in
Cassell V Broome [1972] 1 All ER 801 at 825.
THANK YOU