Examination Answer Booklet

To be filled by Student before completing the Examination

STUDENT ID NUMBER………001-311………………..
DEGREE/DIPLOMA/CERTIFICATE FOR WHICH THE CANDIDATE IS REGISTERED
e.g. BBA,BPH,BIRDS,LLB,BIT:……………LLB…………………….
YEAR OF STUDY…………ONE………………………………………
MODULE CODE…………LLB 125 ………………………………………..
MODULE NAME…… NATURE AND HISTORY OF
TORTS…………………………………………….
SEMESTER………TWO………………………………………………...
VERY IMPORTANT
1. Only your student ID No. and not your Name should be typed on the answer booklet.
2. Ensure that you have typed your Student ID No, Module code and Module name correctly since
any mistake may result into misallocation of results /marks /grades.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE ONLINE EXAMINATION

1. Save the Answer Booklet with the following name format:
2. [module code] [your SID number] Answer Booklet.
3. Example: LLB225 - 012345 Answer Booklet.
4. Write the answer to each question on a new page of the document.
5. Write the question number at the start of each question.
6. Remember to save the document regularly while you are working on it.
7. When you have finished typing your answers into the Answer Booklet, check your work and
then save.
8. Submit your Answer booklet by uploading it to Cavendish University Learning Platform -
Claned.
 CUU Answer booklet

Q.2.

a)

Article 24 of constitution of Uganda 1995 1 states that no person shall be subjected to any form of torture
or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

In Parmiter V Coupland [1840] 6 M&W 105 defines publication without justification or lawful excuse,
which is calculated to injure the reputation of another by exposing them to hatred or ridicule. 2

Where a libel is printed, liability extends not only to the writer and the owner of the publication, but also
to the printer and anyone involved in distributing the publication. So, for example, a newsagent who sold
a magazine containing a defamatory statement could be sued along with author and the publisher.

FACTS

On the 23rd April 2022, the Uganda Times carried the following story entitled “Judge was bribed, Says
Haji Semakula.” An excerpt from the article stated thus:

“Hajji Semakula on Monday told the Nakawa Court that High Court that Judge Patrick Kavuma
was bribed to forge a judgment in favour of a company which was involved in a land dispute with
him. Semakula, proprietor of General Parts (U) Ltd is charged with trespassing on a plot which
Middle North Agencies Ltd claims to own.”

Judge Kavuma has filed a suit against the Uganda Times for defamation alleging that the story implied
that he was corrupt, criminal, immoral, and deserved no respect from the public.

ISSUE

1. whether the Uganda Times is liable to defamation?

2. whether there are possible defenses the Ugandan Times can rise?

LAW APPLICABLE

The 1995 Constitution of Uganda as amended

Case laws:

1. Ssejjoba v Rwabigonji
1
‘Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995 As Amended.
2
Parmiter V Coupland [1840] 6 M&W 105

1
 CUU Answer booklet

2. Specioza Kazibwe V the Independent Publications Ltd

Any other law applicable

APPLYING LAW

ISSUE ONE

whether the Uganda Times is liable to defamation? In the case of Ssejjoba v Rwabigonji3 Defamation
was defined as a statement is one which has a tendency to injure the reputation of the person to whom it
refers by lowering him in the estimation of right- thinking members of society generally and in particular
to cause him to be regarded with feelings of hatred, contempt, ridicule, fear, dislike and disesteem There
are two forms of defamation that is; Libel which is permanent and slander which is temporary.

Reputation was defined in the case of Specioza Kazibwe V the Independent Publications
Ltd4Court held the opinion that “Every man or woman is entitled to have his or her reputation
preserved and inviolate.” the state of being held in high esteem and honour or the general
estimation that the public has for a person. Reputation depends on opinion, and opinion is the
main basis of communication of thoughts and information amongst humans.

The elements of defamation are

Words must be Defamatory

Considering the case of Dr. Ruhakana Rugunda v Teddy Seezi Cheye CS 734/ 91, it was stated
that a defamatory statement must have the capacity to lower the reputation of someone among
the right-thinking members of the society.

The test used to determine whether a statement is capable of giving defamatory meaning was
discussed in the case of A.K. Oils & Fats (U) Ltd Vs Bidco Uganda Limited HCCS 2005 where
Bamwine J (as he then was), relied on Sim Vs Stretch [1936] 2 ALL ER 123 A.C., where Lord
Atkins held that the conventional phrase “exposing the plaintiff to hatred, ridicule and contempt”
is probably too narrow. The question is complicated by having to consider the person and class
of persons whose reaction to the publication is the test of the wrongful character of the words
used. He proposed in that case the test: “would the words tend to lower the plaintiff in the
estimation of the right-thinking members of society generally? This position has been adopted
3
Ssejjoba v Rwabigonji (Civil Suit 1 of 1976) [1977] UGHCCD 1 (18 February 1977)
4
Specioza Kazibwe V the Independent Publications Ltd and Ors [ 2018] UGHCCD

2
 CUU Answer booklet

with approval in Uganda in Honourable Justice Peter Onega Vs John Jaramoji Oloya HCCS
No. 114 of 20095.

The words published were defamatory in nature, uttered by a one Hajji Semakula and therefore
Uganda Times was a third party in this issue. Hence, I find Uganda Time liable for defamation.

Publication

The statement must be published for example communicated to a person other than the claimant.
Basing on the facts at hand; According to the fact in this scenario.

The Uganda Times published in a defamatory statement which was degrading the reputation of
Judge Patrick Kavuma that he was corrupt, criminal, immoral and that he deserved no respect
from the public

Hence, I find the Uganda Times liable for libel defamation since they published a statement said
by someone

Reference to the claimant

It was observed that if defamation is made to a person by description without mentioning the
name, in order to establish a right of action, the plaintiff must prove to the satisfaction of the jury
that ordinary readers of the paper, who knew him, would have understood that it referred to him.
the case of Jones v. Holton & Co. (1909) 6. In this case Uganda Times as a third party published
the real names of Judge Patrick Kavuma in the defamatory story, hence find Uganda Times liable
for libel defamation.

In conclusion, although the Uganda Times didn’t utter out the defamatory statements to Judge
Patrick Kavuma, but as a third party facilitated to publish and circulate the false and defamatory
statement. Hence liable for libel defamation.

ISSUE TWO

5
Sim Vs Stretch [1936] 2 ALL ER 123 A.C
6
Jones v. Holton & Co. [(1909) 2 KB 444]

3
 CUU Answer booklet

whether there are possible defenses the Ugandan Times can rise? As it was stated above that
Where a libel is printed, liability extends not only to the writer and the owner of the publication,
but also to the printer and anyone involved in distributing the publication. So, for example, a
newsagent who sold a magazine containing a defamatory statement could be sued along with
author and the publisher. However, the Uganda Times can rise a defense of The Reynolds
defence. In the past, the common law defence of qualified privilege provided very little
protection for media reports, because it only covered the person who had the duty to make the
statement, and not someone else who repeated it. So, for example, it is settled by law that
someone who has information about a crime has a duty to report it to the police, and the police
have a duty to receive it, so the person giving the information can make a defamatory allegation
and the person who is the subject of it cannot sue for defamation. That is not, however, the case
if a newspaper publishes the allegation, since neither the informant nor the police have a duty to
communicate it to the press.

In the case of Reynolds v Times Newspapers (1999)7. The case arose from a news story
published by The Times about the former Taoiseach (Irish prime minister), Albert Reynolds, and
the circumstances leading up to his resignation. Mr. Reynolds claimed that the article suggested
that he had deliberately misled the Irish parliament. The Times put forward the defence of
qualified privilege, arguing that it should apply to all discussion of matters of serious public
interest, because the media had a duty to report such matters and the public a duty to inform
themselves about them. While refusing to go quite this far, the House of Lords accepted that it
was important that information on matters of public interest should be freely available, so that
people could make informed choices about, for example, who they voted for. However, the Law
Lords pointed out that it was also in the public interest for individuals such as politicians to be
able to defend their reputations against false allegations because, to make an informed choice,
voters needed to know who was good as well as who was bad. They therefore developed a new
form of the qualified privilege defence, which essentially seeks to protect information published
fairly and responsibly in the public interest. It does this by balancing a number of factors,
covering the importance to the public of the information revealed, and the behavior of the media
in the process of revealing it. In a subsequent case, Loutchansky v Times Newspapers (2002)8,

7
Reynolds v Times Newspapers (1999) .
8
Loutchansky v Times Newspapers (2002)

4
 CUU Answer booklet

the Court of Appeal accepted that the Reynolds defence had become a specific new defence,
separate from traditional qualified privilege.

Facts

The grapevine has it that there is a sex scandal in the corridors of power at the August House
here in Uganda. The female Head of the Legislature is said to have been nailed at least 10
members of the House and in fact might be expecting a child from one of them. She is even said
to have paid off one of the members to keep quiet about their escapades.”
Hon. Anita Among has seen this article and would like to sue the newspaper for its statement.
ISSUE

1. whether Spicy Hot Newspaper is liable to defamation?

2. whether there are possible defenses Spicy Hot Newspaper can rise?

LAW APPLICABLE

The 1995 Constitution of Uganda as amended

Case laws

Any other law

APPLYING THE LAW

whether Spicy Hot Newspaper is liable to defamation? In the case of Ssejjoba v Rwabigonji9 Defamation
was defined as a statement is one which has a tendency to injure the reputation of the person to whom it
refers by lowering him in the estimation of right- thinking members of society generally and in particular
to cause him to be regarded with feelings of hatred, contempt, ridicule, fear, dislike and disesteem There
are two forms of defamation that is; Libel which is permanent and slander which is temporary. In the
same case number of elements to consider to determine defamatory

The elements of defamation are

1. Words must be defamatory

2. The statement must be published
3. Reference to the claimant
9
Ssejjoba v Rwabigonji (Civil Suit 1 of 1976) [1977] UGHCCD 1 (18 February 1977)

5
 CUU Answer booklet

Words must be Defamatory

Considering the case of Dr. Ruhakana Rugunda v Teddy Seezi Cheye CS 734/ 91, it was stated
that a defamatory statement must have the capacity to lower the reputation of someone among
the right-thinking members of the society. According to the facts spicy hot newspaper printed a
story stating that “The grapevine has it that there is a sex scandal in the corridors of power
at the August House here in Uganda. The female Head of the Legislature is said to have
been nailed at least 10 members of the House and in fact might be expecting a child from
one of them. She is even said to have paid off one of the members to keep quiet about their
escapades.” This statement was defamatory in nature hence Hon. Anita Among can sue the
newspaper for libel defamation.

Reference to the claimant

In Jones v. Holton & Co. (1909, It was observed that if defamation is made to a person by
description without mentioning the name, in order to establish a right of action, the plaintiff must
prove to the satisfaction of the jury that ordinary readers of the paper, who knew him, would
have understood that it referred to him. In this case, although they didn’t mention the name but
the description could make the reader would understand whom they were talking about as the
wrote that “The female Head of the Legislature”, since Hon Anita Among is the head of the
legislature, automatically every reader would understand that they were talking about her.

Hence Hon. Anita Among can sue the newspaper for libel defamation.

Publication

A. The statement must be published for example communicated to a person other than the
claimant. Basing on the facts at hand; According to the fact in this scenario. Spicy Hot
Newspaper published story titled “Senior legislator caught red handed in sex scandal”
and the story read as follows.

“The grapevine has it that there is a sex scandal in the corridors of power at the
August House here in Uganda. The female Head of the Legislature is said to have
been nailed at least 10 members of the House and in fact might be expecting a child

6
 CUU Answer booklet

from one of them. She is even said to have paid off one of the members to keep quiet
about their escapades.”
Hence, spicy hot newspaper liable for libel defamation since they published this article

7
 CUU Answer booklet

Q.1.

FACTS

Kalele was arrested by the neighbors for allegedly stealing chicken in the neighborhood and
taken to court. On appeal to the Higher court, the judgment was over turned and Kalele was set
free. While in the prison Kalamu the neighbor built a wall that extended into the land of Kalele.
All efforts to inform Kalamu to extend to extend the fence to his own land but all in vain. Martin
Kalele’s shamba boy while slashing the grass outside the gate broke a windscreen of Kalama’s
car. The screen is valued at UGX 500,000. Tommie, Kalamu’s driver took the car to the
mechanic for safe custody until the windscreen is replaced. The mechanic started using it for
Uber services around Kampala.

ISSUES

1. Whether Kalele can sue his neighbors for the tort of malicious prosecution?
2. Whether Kalele can sue Kalamu for the tort of trespass to land?
3. Whether Kalele is vicariously liable for the breakage of the windscreen of Kalamu’s car?
4. Whether the mechanic is liable for the tort of trespass to goods?
5. Whether there are any remedies available to the parties?

LAW APPLICATION

The 1995 Constitution of Uganda as amended

Case laws:

Any other law applicable

APPLYING LAW

ISSUE ONE

Whether Kalele can sue his neighbors for the tort of malicious prosecution? According to
Articles 119(4)(c) & 120(3)(b) of the Constitution, about the functions of the attorney General
and the Director ofPublic Prosecutions respectively that states; to represent the Government in

8
 CUU Answer booklet

courts or any other legal proceedings to which the Government is a party AND to take over and
continue any criminal proceedings instituted by any other person or authority.10

This action is brought in response to any baseless and malicious litigation or prosecution whether
criminal or civil. It is also filed in a civil court against the parties who took an active role in
initiating or encouraging the original case. In the case of Olango v Attorney General & Anor11
For case to succeed for malicious prosecution, the essential ingredients to prove malicious
prosecution are as follows:

Elements

The original case was terminated in favour of the plaintiff; if the case is on appeal, it is not
terminated; if the parties reached an agreement, there’s no termination.

The defendant played an active role in the original case; false testimony doesn’t count.

There was no probable cause or reasonable grounds

The defendant initiated or continued the initial case with an improper purpose

In this case, there is no doubt since it is an agreed fact that the neighbors allegedly arrested
Kalele for stealing chicken in the neighborhood and took him to court. which proceedings were
later overturned in the higher court in the Kalele’s favor hence proving all of the essential
ingredients of malicious prosecution.

In conclusion, Kalele would successfully sue for the tort of malicious prosecution.

ISSUE2

Whether Kalele can sue Kalamu for the tort of trespass to land?

Whether Kalele can sue Kalamu for the tort of trespass to land as a continuing tort?

Trespass to land is a continuing tort when unlawful entry to the land is followed by its
continuous occupation or exploitation. Proof of continuous occupation is sufficient proof of
trespass even if the date when the trespass is commenced is not known. And this the case as All
10
Articles 119(4)(c) & 120(3)(b) of the Constitution of Uganda
11
Olango v Attorney General & Anor (Civil Suit 681 of 2016) [2020] UGHCCD 94 (15 May 2020)

9
 CUU Answer booklet

efforts to inform Kalamu to extend the fence to his own land have been in vain, and also Kalamu
has continued to use the wall fence and in fact added razor wire at the top of the wall.

According to Justine Lutaaya V Stirling Civil Engineering, trespass to land is when a person
makes unauthorized entry upon land and thereby interfering with another person’s lawful
possession of the land12

It should be noted that the intention of knowledge of the trespass is not important for the tort as
stated in the case of Conway George V George Wimpey and Company [1951]13

. In conclusion, Kalele can sue Kalamu for trespass to land since he built a wall fence extending
to Kalele’s land and in fact adding a razor wire on the wall even after being informed by Kalele.

ISSUE 3

Whether Kalele is vicariously liable for the breakage of the windscreen of Kalamu’s car?

According to Muwonge V Ag [1967], An act maybe done in the course of a servant’s

employment so as to make his or her master liable even if it is done contrary to the orders of the
master and even if the servant is acting deliberately negligently or even criminally or for his own
behalf never the less if what he did is merely a manner of doing what he was employed to carry
out then his master is liable.14

However, in Bayley v Manchester Sheffield and Lincolnshire railway co; states that the master
will not be liable for a servant’s actions if the servant was on a fluoric of his own and not in the
line of the duty he was hired to do.15

In conclusion, the fact that Martin was slashing the grass outside the gate with in his duties
makes Kalele vicariously liable for the breakage of Kalamu’s car windscreen.

ISSUE 4

Whether the mechanic is liable for the tort conversion?

12
Justine Lutaaya V Stirling Civil Engineering Appeal No11 2002,
13
Conway George V George Wimpey and Company [1951]
14
Muwonge V Ag [1967] EA 17
15
Bayley v Manchester Sheffield and Lincolnshire railway co [1871] 7 C.P 415

10
 CUU Answer booklet

In the case of Khalid Walusimbi v Jamil Kaaya; Dealing with goods in a manner inconsistent
with the rights of the true owner provided that there was an intention on the part of the
defendant.16

The following elements have to be considered for tort of conversion to be successful;

 Plaintiff had ownership, possession or the right to immediate possession

 Subject matter must be specific personal property capable of being stolen
 The defendant must have exercised control or interference with the rights of the plaintiff
over the goods
 Defendant did the act

According to the facts of the case, Kalamu’s driver took the car to a mechanic for safe custody
until the windscreen is replaced. This gave Kalele’s driver right to immediate possession and the
mechanic interfered with rights of Kalele's drivers’ rights over the car when he started using for
other activities that were not assigned for.

Hence, in this case, the mechanic is liable for the tort of conversion under trespass to goods
because of using the car that had been taken for repair for Uber services.

Q.3.

a) BRIEF FACTS

Nana owns a hotel called the Lover’s Haven in Arua. Some of the conditions for the entry are ‘Invited
guest only’. Last week, a story was aired that popular venue in Arua was frequently hired by the
16
Khalid Walusimbi v Jamil Kaaya (civil suit No.526) of [1988-1990]

11
 CUU Answer booklet

opposition politicians. Subsequently she found several police officers sitting in front of her gate.
She demanded that they should leave as they were not invited guest and they argued that they
were on duty.

ISSUE

Whether Nana can sue the police officers for the tort of trespass to land?

LAW APPLICABLE

The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as amended

Case law;

Justine Lutaaya V Stirling Civil Engineering Appeal No11 2002,

Any Other Law

APPLYING LAW

ISSUE 1

Whether Nana can sue the police officers for the tort of trespass to land?

According to Justine Lutaaya V Stirling Civil Engineering, trespass to land is when a person
makes unauthorized entry upon land and thereby interfering with another person’s lawful
possession of the land.17

Trespass to land is a continuing tort when unlawful entry to the land is followed by its
continuous occupation or exploitation. Proof of continuous occupation is sufficient proof of
trespass even if the date when the trespass is commenced is not known. In this case she found
several police officers sitting in front of her gate and in her gardens. When she demanded that
they leave as they were not guests, they argued that they were on duty. To date, these police
officers are still present on her land. And this amount for trespass to land as a continuing tort.

In conclusion, therefore Nana can sue the police officers for the tort of trespass to land since
they made unauthorized entry into her land by sitting in front of her gate and in her gardens up to
date without being invited and even continued to stay on the land even after being asked to leave
the land.

17
Justine Lutaaya V Stirling Civil Engineering Appeal No11 2002,

12
 CUU Answer booklet

B)

BRIEF FACTS

Shana, a finance to Richard, whose wedding was in two weeks heard news on the radio while
driving to their wedding meeting that Link Bus travelling from Jinga has over turned and all the
passengers have died. She quickly rushed to the scene. She found a huge crowd in a pool of
blood

ISSUE

Whether Shana can sue the Radio station for the Infliction of Mental suffering on her?

LAW APPLICABLE

The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as amended

Case law;

Alcock v chief constable of south Yorkshire [1992] 1 AC 310

Any other law

APPLYING LAW

In Alcock v chief constable of south Yorkshire [1992] 1 AC 310 mental suffering is any kind
of distress caused to a person.18

Also, in the case of Alcorns V Ambro Engenireeing Co. Ltd the elements to prove the tort of
mental suffering are clearly stated as;19

 The outrageous conduct of the defendant

 Defendants reckless disregard of possibility of causing emotional distress
 Plaintiffs suffering of a psychiatric illness
 Defendant caused it

In page v smith; it was held that they are two victims of mental suffering, the primary (those
involved directly in the accident of incident) and secondary victims (those who witness the

18
Alcock v chief constable of south Yorkshire [1992] 1 AC 310
19
Alcorns V Ambro Engenireeing Co. Ltd

13
 CUU Answer booklet

accident of incident) since Shana heard of the accident news on the radio and again went and
witnessed the accident incident, she qualifies to be a secondary victim.20

In conclusion the radio station would not be liable for inflicting mental suffering on Shana since
they were just updating people on the Link Bus accident that had happened.

BRIEF FACTS

Jane, Jack’s landlady required him to pay rent of UG X 5,000,000 in arrears and thinking that he
had failed to adhere the last warning took out the rent proceeding and got a court Bailiffs who
distressed Jack’s property in his absence. When jack returned, he produced a receipt of a Bank
transfer of the rent arrears.

ISSUES

Whether Jack can sue Jane for the tort of trespass to good?

LAW APPLICABLE

APPLYING LAW

Whether Jack can sue Jane for the tort of trespass to good?

In Khalid Walusimbi v Jamil Kaaya it was held that in order to succeed in trespass to goods
consist direct and wrongful interference with the goods of the other and to maintain an action of
trespass to goods jack must have been in possession of good at the time of trespass. According to
the facts of the cases Jack was in possession o the goods at the time of trespass as they were in
his room.21

In this case, jane got a court Bailiffs who distressed Jack’s property in Jack’s absence which
included a TV screen, a refrigerator and a set of sofas.

In the case of Johnson v Diprose, it was also held that the plaintiff must had possession of the
goods at the time of trespass.22

20
page v smith [1996] AC 155
21
Khalid Walusimbi v Jamil Kaaya (civil suit No.526) of [1988-1990]
22
Johnson v Diprose [1893] 1 QB 512

14
 CUU Answer booklet

Interference with possession; in Johnson v Diprose 23In this case, Jane took out rent proceedings
and got court bailiffs who distressed Jack’s property in his absence, which amount to
interference with possession of goods.

Inconclusion therefore according to the case of Khalid Walusimbi v Jamil Kaaya [1988], Jack
can successfully sue jane for the tort of trespass to goods.24

No 4)

vicarious liability is a liability that a supervisory party such as an employee bears for the
actionable conduct of the employee based on the relationship between the two parties

It was held in the case of Muwonge v Attorney General, that an act may be done in the course
of the servant’s employment so as to make the master liable even though it is done contrary to
23
Johnson v Diprose [1893] 1 QB 512
24
Khalid Walusimbi v Jamil Kaaya (civil suit No.526) of [1988-1990]

15
 CUU Answer booklet

the orders of the masters, and even if the servant is acting deliberately, negligently or criminally
or for his or her own benefit nevertheless if he did it is merely a manner of carrying out what he
was employed to carry out then his manners is liable.25

26
Furthermore, it was also held in the case of Hilton v Thomas Burton that if the tort is
committed outside the course of the employment, then the employee is deemed to be on his own
thus the employer or the master cannot be held liable the torturous act as it was in the case
where the employees albeit having permission to drive the employer’s van drone eight miles
away from the café to have tea and on the way back due to the negligence of the driver, one of
the workmen died with the widow sued the employer. Court found the favor of the employer as
the act was committed outside the normal course of the employer’s employment.

Therefore, the ingredients for vicarious liability are as laid,

 The existence of an employer-employee relationship

 The tort must have been committed during the course of the employee’s work

First of all, the existence of an employee-employer servant relationship id the most important
aspect in establishing vicarious liability the courts developed test which they applied in the
existence of this relationship as I shall discuss below;

1. THE CONTROL TEST

This was the earliest test developed by the courts to determine the existence of a master-servant
relationship to which the courts used the amount of control one had in the relationship to
determine whether he was an employer

The control test was laid down in the case of Short V J &W Henderson Ltd 27in which Lord
Thankerton stated that in application of the control test there were four indications to establish a
contract of services namely;

a) The master’s power of selection of his or her servant

b) The payment of wages or other remuneration
c) The master’s right to control the method of doing work

25
Muwonge v Attorney General[1967] EA17
26
Hilton v Thomas Burton (Rhodes)ltd 1961
27
Short V J &W Henderson Ltd [1946] 62 TLR427

16
 CUU Answer booklet

d) The master’s right to suspension

It was held in Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v Coddins and Griffith and Griffith and
Another that if the employer only determines what work is to be done but has limited or no
control as to how the work is to be done then the subject is to be classified as an independent
contractor therefore no covered under vicarious liability.

However, the control test as laid down in short v J and W Henderson Ltd (supra) proved not
to be absolute in determining the existence of a contract of service especially with in case of
professionals as in such instances employers have limited or no control in controlling the method
of how work was to be done.

2. The Integration Test

The integration test necessitated courts when determining the existence of an employer-
employee relationship to look organization of the employer’s work and how important the
employee was in this work thus ascertaining the level of integration in the employer’s work. That
is to say that the services offered by the subject are an integral part of the employer’s work then
he is to be deemed an employee.

This test is clear evident in the case of Cassidy v Ministry of Health28 in which the claimant who
had suffered post-surgery complications due to the negligence of the doctor sued the doctor’s
employer for the negligence which the defendant argued that he could not be held liable for the
actions of the doctor to the defendant’s limited control on how the doctor performed his work.

The court held that due to the fact that the employee engages in specialized and technical work
for which he is special; Ly qualified does not mean that he is a servant, but rather if he was
chosen by the defendant for the job and is fully integrated in to the defendant’s organization as it
was in this case the defendant can be held vicariously liable.

In conclusion, vicarious liability refers to the shifting of liability from the employer to the
employer for the torturous acts committed by the employee during the course of his employment.
This shifting has been

28
Cassidy v Ministry of Health [1951] 2 KB 343

17
 CUU Answer booklet

18
 CUU Answer booklet

19
 CUU Answer booklet

20
 CUU Answer booklet

21
 CUU Answer booklet

22
 CUU Answer booklet

23
 CUU Answer booklet

24
 CUU Answer booklet

25
 CUU Answer booklet

26
 CUU Answer booklet

27
 CUU Answer booklet

28
 CUU Answer booklet

29
 CUU Answer booklet

30
 CUU Answer booklet

31
 CUU Answer booklet

32
 CUU Answer booklet

33