Kampala Car Park Owner to Pay Shs 3m over Stolen Motorcycle

Kampala, Uganda | The High Court in Kampala has dismissed an appeal by Woundy Centre Washing Bay and Car Park and its operator Ibrahim Kalungi, upholding a lower court decision that found them liable for the theft of a customer’s motorcycle. 

The judgment reinforces the principle that businesses offering custodial services have a duty of care that cannot be delegated.

The case arose from a 2013 incident in which Charles Wasswa Matovu parked his new Bajaj Boxer motorcycle, registration number UEA 534W, at the appellants’ night parking lot and paid a fee of Shs 2,000. 

The next morning, he was falsely informed that he had already collected the motorcycle. The on-duty security guard was later convicted of theft.

Matovu sued the car park and its operators in 2015, and the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Buganda Road found that a contractual relationship had been created by the payment and issuance of a receipt. 

The magistrate held that the car park owners “offered a night parking service and are liable for the actions of those that they contract to act on their behalf,” assigning them 60% liability.

In their appeal, the car park owners argued that the parking lot was meant only for vehicles, not motorcycles, and that the guard had acted independently without their knowledge. 

They claimed they had exercised due diligence by contracting a professional security company and should not be held responsible for the criminal acts of its employee.

However, in a judgment delivered on July 31, 2025, Justice Simon Peter M. Kinobe rejected those arguments. 

“The appellants cannot run away from this relationship on the basis that they run a car park for cars and not motorcycles,” he ruled. 

“The moment the respondent paid money whose receipt was acknowledged, a contractual obligation was established. Any reasonable man would have believed that by paying for the appellants’ services, his motorcycle would have been secure.”

The court found that the theft was foreseeable, and that the appellants had breached their duty of care. 

“The very people hired to provide security became villains. The appellants cannot be held to have taken all possible due diligence and care to avoid the theft,” Justice Kinobe stated. 

“The appellants’ breach of contract or duty is the primary and substantial cause of the respondent’s loss.”

While acknowledging that the appellants could seek reimbursement from the security firm through third-party proceedings, the judge emphasized that “the respondent was not privy to the contract and/or arrangement between the appellants and the 2nd defendant. The contract as far as parking his motorcycle was concerned was between the respondent and the appellants.”

On the matter of liability apportionment, the judge upheld the 60:40 split assigned by the trial magistrate, ruling that “the appellants owed a non-delegable duty of care.” He concluded that “the trial magistrate correctly applied the law and evaluated the evidence. The appellants were rightly held liable for negligence and vicarious liability.”

The court affirmed the earlier award of Shs 3,101,000 for the lost motorcycle, Shs 1,000,000 in general damages, interest at 8% per annum, and costs of the suit. The appeal was dismissed in its entirety