ATUHAIRE ALAM

035-103

LLB 4

LABOUR LAW

CAT 1

Brief facts

Dr. Iddi Amin, a surgeon at ABC Hospital in Muyenga, had a concealed alcohol problem.
Unbeknownst to the hospital, he operated on Ms. Maria Obote while under the influence,
leaving a surgical instrument in her abdomen. This negligence led to severe abdominal
pain and infection, necessitating emergency surgery elsewhere. Ms. Obote sued ABC
Hospital, attributing her suffering to Dr. Amin's actions. The hospital, however, asserted
that Dr. Amin was a contractor, not an employee, and thus they lacked control over his
surgical practices and timing. The case underscores issues of responsibility and oversight
in medical contracting arrangements, as well as the potential consequences of substance
abuse in healthcare settings.

Issues

1. Whether there was medical malpractice by Dr Amin?

2. Whether ABC hospital is Vicariously liable for Dr Amin’s negligence?

Law applicable

 Employment Act 2006

 Case law

Application

1. Whether there was medical malpractice by Dr Amin?

Section 2 of the Employment Act, defines an employee as, any person who has entered
into a contract of service or an apprenticeship contract including any person who is
employed by or for the government of Uganda, including the Uganda Public
Service, local authority or parastatal but excludes a member of UPDF.
employment is not necessarily a life appointment with the status of irrevocability.”
Therefore, Dr. Amin's actions constitute medical malpractice. Leaving a surgical
instrument in a patient's abdomen is a serious breach of the standard of care expected
from a surgeon. This negligent act directly caused harm to Ms. Obote, leading to her
suffering and requiring additional surgery. Therefore, Ms. Obote has a strong case for
medical malpractice against Dr. Amin personally.

2. Whether ABC hospital is Vicariously liable for Dr Amin’s negligence?

Section 2 of the Employment Act (2006) defines an employer as any person or group of
persons, including a company, or corporation, a public regional or local authority,
partnership, organization or institution, for whom an employee works or has worked, or
normally worked or sought to work, under a contract of service.
In the case of Prof. Syed Huq v. Islamic University in Uganda1, Wambuzi C.J said,
“Employer means any person, company, firm, or corporation, that has entered into a
contract of service to employ any other person, agent, foreman, manager or factor of such
employer or entered into a contract of service with the government…”
Employers may be liable under the common law principle represented in the Latin
phrase, qui facit per alium facit perse (He who acts through another act himself). This
means the employer is liable for the acts of his employee committed within the course of
his employment. Thus, in the case of Muwonge v Attorney General2, Newbold, P stated
that; “A master is liable for the acts of his servant committed within the scope of his
employment the master remains so liable whether the acts of the servant are negligent or
deliberate or wanton or criminal.”
1 Appeal No. 47 of 1995
2 Civil Appeal No. 10 of 1966.
A good illustration was in the case of Lloyd v. Grace, Smith and Company3, where a
master was held vicariously liable for the fraud of an employee.
It should be noted that the principle of Vicarious liability extensively covers the doctrine
of “Respondeat Superior”, which means, let the master respond. It is also, in varying
forms, applied in many European countries4 and African courts at large. Respondeat
Superior is a legal doctrine which states that, in many circumstances, an employer is
responsible for the actions of employees performed within the course of their
employment. In a broader scope, Respondeat superior is based upon the concept of
vicarious liability.

The basic rule is that, this doctrine only applies where there is a valid existence of the
“Employer-Employee relationship.” Thus, the Court of Appeal of Uganda in the case of
Security 2000 Ltd v. Cumberland5 stated at page 7 that; “Employer-Employee
relationship falls under the doctrine of respondeat superior. This doctrine holds
employers to be responsible for the lack of care on the part of employees to whom the
employers owe a duty of care. In applying the respondeat superior doctrine, the
employee’s negligence must occur within the scope of employment.” Therefore, this
principle holds employers responsible for the negligent acts of their employees when
those acts occur within the scope of employment. Whether Dr. Amin's actions fall within
the scope of his relationship with the hospital would depend on various factors, such as
whether the hospital controlled his work, provided him with tools and equipment, and
whether he was representing the hospital when treating Ms. Obote.

In conclusion, even if Dr. Amin was a contractor, ABC Hospital may still be liable if
they were negligent in hiring or supervising him. If the hospital failed to conduct a

3 [1912] A.C 716.

4 Smith, Frolic and Detour, 23 Colum, L. Rev 444, 452-3 (1923); Neuner, Respondeat Superior in light of Comparative Law, 4 La.
L. Rev. 1 (1941).
5 Civil Appeal No. 0916 of 2014.
proper background check or overlooked Dr. Amin's known alcohol problem, they might
be held liable for their own negligence contributing to the harm caused to Ms. Obote
Therefore, regarding these considerations, Ms. Obote may choose to pursue legal action
against both ABC Hospital and Dr. Amin. She should consult with a qualified medical
malpractice attorney in her jurisdiction to assess the specific details of her case and
determine the best course of action