Share
Kato Gerald Senyange v Attorney General (Complaint UHRC 99 of 2011) [2023] UGHRC 7 (7 February 2023)
- Citation
- [2023] UGHRC 7
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- Uganda Human Rights Commission
- Panel
- Mariam Wangadya - Chairperson, Stephen Basaliza - Commissioner, Omara Apitta Lamex - Commissioner, Shifrah Lukwago - Commissioner
- Case number
- Complaint UHRC 99 of 2011
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Uganda Human Rights Commission
- Panel
- Mariam Wangadya - Chairperson, Stephen Basaliza - Commissioner, Omara Apitta Lamex - Commissioner, Shifrah Lukwago - Commissioner
- Case number
- Complaint UHRC 99 of 2011
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Tribunal found that the shooting of the complainant by a Police officer was unintentional and did not amount to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. However, the respondent was held liable for violation of the complainant's right to security of person. The Tribunal considered the evidence of injury, the respondent's admission and regret, and the impact on the complainant's life. It awarded general damages to compensate for the violation and ordered interest at the court rate until payment in full.
Court disposition
complaint_allowed
Orders
- The complaint is allowed.
- The Attorney General is ordered to pay to the complainant a total sum of UGX 8,000,000 as general damages for violation of his right to security of person.
- The general damages shall attract interest at the court rate from the date of this decision until payment in full.
- Each party shall bear their own costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Kato Gerald Ssenyange
ApplicantAttorney General
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- General Damages Awarded: UGX 8,000,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Human Rights Complaint / Final Decision
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the shooting by the Police officer amounted to a violation of the complainant's right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
- 02
Whether the respondent is liable for violation of the complainant's right to security of person.
- 03
Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation for the injuries sustained.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant alleged that he was shot by a Police officer while intervening in a property dispute, resulting in serious physical injuries, constant pain, and inability to work. He claimed this constituted torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and sought compensation for the violation of his rights.
- Respondent
- The respondent did not contest the occurrence of the shooting but argued that it was unintentional and not amounting to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The respondent expressed regret for the incident and highlighted visits by officials to the complainant in hospital.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Article 24 and 27 of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda; Universal Declaration of Human Rights
The right to security of person is protected under the Constitution and international human rights instruments.
- 02
Article 50 of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda
Compensation is an appropriate remedy for violation of constitutional rights.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Tribunal found that the shooting of the complainant by a Police officer was unintentional and did not amount to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. However, the respondent was held liable for violation of the complainant's right to security of person. The Tribunal considered the evidence of injury, the respondent's admission and regret, and the impact on the complainant's life. It awarded general damages to compensate for the violation and ordered interest at the court rate until payment in full.
Obiter and limits
- The Tribunal notes the importance of police accountability in the use of firearms, even in unintentional incidents.
- Visits by senior police officials to the complainant in hospital are acknowledged as expressions of regret but do not absolve liability for the violation.
Court disposition
complaint_allowed
- The complaint is allowed.
- The Attorney General is ordered to pay to the complainant a total sum of UGX 8,000,000 as general damages for violation of his right to security of person.
- The general damages shall attract interest at the court rate from the date of this decision until payment in full.
- Each party shall bear their own costs.
Source and reliance status
Uganda Human Rights Commission
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Uganda Human Rights Commission
Judgment
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA THE UGANDA HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION (UHRC) TRIBUNAL HOLDEN AT KAMPALA COMPLAINT NO: UHRC/ 99/2011 KATO GERALD SSENYANGE:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: $\Lambda$ ND ATTORNEY GENERAL :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 1. HON: MARIAM WANGADYA CORAM: 2. HON: COL (RTD) STEPHEN BASALIZA
3. HON: OMARA APITTA LAMEX
4. HON: SHIFRAH LUKWAGO
BRIEF FACTS
The Complainant, alleges that on 18<sup>th</sup> April 2011 at about 10:00 a.m., while he was in Kitaka Trading Center talking to some people to stop destroying someone's property, he was shot by a Police officer in his right side cheek and he fell down. That he regained his consciousness when he was at Mulago National Referral Hospital. That as a result of the shooting, his hands and neck were deformed and he can no longer do the work he used to do. He also alleged that he suffers constant pain in the head, spine and experiences general body weakness. The Complainant prayed to the Tribunal to order for compensation to be paid to him by the Respondent for the alleged violation of his right of freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
DECISION
This was an un intentional shooting as evidenced from the testimonies of the complainant and his witnesses. This tribunal is not satisfied that the Respondent's agents violated the Complainant's right to freedom from torture but instead holds the respondent liable for the violation of his right to security of person. The Respondent's agents regretted the shooting as evidenced by visits to the
Complainant in hospital by the Police Spokesperson at the time, Judith Nabakooba and Brigadier Nalweyiso.
We therefore make the following orders:
ORDERS
- 1. The complaint is allowed. - 2. The Attorney General is ordered to pay to the Complainant a total sum of UGX $8,000,000=$ (Uganda Shillings Eight Million Shillings Only) as general damages for violation of his right to security of person. - 3. The general damages shall attract interest at the court rate from the date of this decision until payment in full. - 4. Each party shall bear their own costs.
Either party not satisfied with the decision of the Tribunal may appeal to the High Court of Uganda within thirty (30) days from the date of delivery of the detailed decision.
DATED AT KAMPALA ON THIS ....................................
XXLHONIST
HON: MARIAM WANGADYA
CHAIRPERSON
sah?
HON: COETRTD) STEPHEN BASALIZA MEMBER
| HON: OMARA APITTA LAMEX<br><b>MEMBER</b> | |------------------------------------------| | |
HON: SHIFRAH LUKWAGO MEMBER
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.