Court reiterates that schools, as 'In Loco Parentis', must not supplant parental authority, and that economic, social, or other differences between parents do not diminish their constitutional rights
- Waboga David
- Jun 12
- 5 min read
Introduction
Imagine enrolling your child in a trusted school, only to be informed, without warning, that your child has been handed over to someone else (your ex-wife) without your knowledge or consent. No call. No explanation. Just gone.
This was the lived experience of Mr. Ruzindataro Tadeo, who entrusted Bishop Asili Memorial Nursery and Primary School with the care of his daughter, only to later discover that the school had unilaterally released her to a third party.
What followed was not only a police investigation and prolonged emotional distress, but also a legal battle that tested the contours of parental authority, institutional responsibility, and the limits of the doctrine of loco parentis in Uganda.
Despite ultimately conceding to the factual basis of the claim, the defendant school had, without any legal justification or court order, enabled the minor’s five-year separation from her father between 2018 and 2023.
In this decision reaffirming the constitutional and statutory rights of children and parents, the Court has found that the school’s conduct violated Articles 31(4), 31(5), and 34(1) of the 1995 Constitution, the Children Act (Cap 63), and the National Parenting Guidelines (2018).
The court clarified that a school acting in loco parentis does not possess authority to override parental rights without following lawful procedures. Moreover, disparities between separated or divorced parents, whether social, economic, or relational, cannot diminish constitutional protections.
The Court further held that such violations are actionable under Article 50(1) of the Constitution, entitling the aggrieved party to compensation and appropriate redress.
In an era where schools (mainly boarding schools) increasingly serve as primary caregivers for children, this decision serves as a timely and important reminder: educational institutions must exercise their delegated authority with vigilance, legality, and respect for the enduring rights of parents.
Facts
The plaintiff, Ruzindataro Tadeo, filed a suit in 2022 against the School Management Committee of Bishop Asili Memorial Nursery and Primary School for unlawfully releasing his minor daughter to a third party, his ex-wife, without his knowledge or consent. The child, enrolled at the school since 2014, was removed on 25 April 2018.
The plaintiff was informed only after the fact, prompting him to report a case of child theft to police.
Investigations revealed that the school acted on a letter allegedly from the mother requesting to take the child for medical treatment, dated a day after the mother had already left the country.
The plaintiff was denied access to the child’s school belongings, and the minor remained separated from him for five years (2018–2023).
The plaintiff claimed severe emotional distress and a breakdown.
The defendant denied liability, arguing that both parents had joint custody and that the child had been taken in her best interests.
Notably, a previous suit involving the same parties was withdrawn due to procedural defects.
The child was eventually located and placed in the custody of a third party, Phionah Rukundo, under a 2023 consent order. Court proceedings resumed in 2025, summoning all relevant parties, including the minor, the Probation and Social Welfare Officer, and Ms. Rukundo, for final resolution.
Key Holding
The Court held that the defendants (a school and its administrators) violated the plaintiff’s constitutional and parental rights by releasing a child to a third party (who was not the biological mother and had no legal authority) without the father's consent.
The actions amounted to an unlawful deprivation of the father’s parental duties and the child’s right to be raised and guided by her parent under Articles 31(4), 31(5) and 34(1) of the Constitution of Uganda, as well as Sections 5 and 6 of the Children Act (Cap. 63).
The Court reaffirmed Article 31(4) and (5) of the Constitution, stating that the right and duty to care for children lies primarily with their biological parents.
It held that separating the minor from her father without his consent breached these constitutional guarantees, as well as provisions under the Children Act, Cap 63.
Doctrine of In Loco Parentis
The defendants, as custodians of the child in a boarding school, were found to be acting in loco parentis and thus obligated to safeguard the plaintiff's parental rights.
The Court relied on Black’s Law Dictionary and common law to underline that schools must not delegate custody to third parties without formal legal consent.
Best Interests of the Child
Citing the Uganda National Parenting Guidelines (2018) and constitutional provisions, the Court emphasized that economic status or family breakdown (e.g. divorce) cannot override the fundamental rights of a parent.
The child’s welfare was evaluated based on objective legal standards, rather than subjective or informal arrangements.
Key Findings
Best Interests of the Child Must Be Determined Objectively
The Court emphasized that the “best interests of the child” are an overriding legal principle in all child-related disputes, but must be objectively grounded in law, not presumed by third parties or institutions like schools.
Involuntary Separation from Parent Was Unlawful
Despite the school’s claim of being tricked by an acquaintance of the child’s mother, the Court found that the school had a continuing duty to inform the father, who was the enrolled guardian. The five-year period (2018–2023) of separation, without the father’s consent, constituted a breach of his parental rights and the child's right to family life.
Schools as 'In Loco Parentis' Must Not Supplant Parental Authority
The judgment reiterates that schools act in loco parentis, a temporary role, and cannot delegate or reassign a child’s custody without legal basis or parental approval. The failure of the school to notify the father when the child was picked by an unauthorized person was a gross dereliction of that duty.
State Officials Must Respect Family Autonomy
The Court criticized Probation and Welfare Officers who fail to uphold family integrity, warning that state actors must promote, not undermine, the institution of the family. The role of the state ends where unjustified interference in family life begins.
Constitutional Redress Available Under Article 50
The Court held that the plaintiff’s rights under Article 50(1) of the Constitution were clearly violated, entitling him to constitutional redress including damages for the prolonged separation and trauma.
Damages and Remedies
The plaintiff claimed general, punitive, and exemplary damages for the unlawful actions. The Court recognized the egregious conduct of the defendants and their attempt to minimize liability by offering only UGX 5 million, despite the severity of the harm. The final quantum of damages remains to be determined based on written submissions.
Judicial Warning in a comment
The Court warned against third parties – including schools and even courts – confusing parental disputes (such as divorce) with the legal rights of children. It emphasized that economic hardship or parental separation does not justify undermining a parent’s constitutional rights to raise and care for their child.
Implications for Educational Institutions
Schools must have clear protocols for child pickup and parental consent verification.
Institutions must recognize their temporary role and must never substitute themselves for legally recognized guardians.
.jpg)
留言