Share
Mary Ntungire and Another v Dr. Mutambabazi and Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 40 of 2025) [2025] UGHCCD 64 (8 May 2025)
- Citation
- [2025] UGHCCD 64
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Baguma, J
- Case number
- Miscellaneous Cause No. 40 of 2025
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Baguma, J
- Case number
- Miscellaneous Cause No. 40 of 2025
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the central relief sought by the applicants—release of the 1st applicant from detention and access to private medical treatment—had been rendered moot by her discharge from Butabika National Referral Mental Hospital prior to the ruling. The evidence showed that the 1st applicant was admitted for mental health treatment with the involvement of her family, and the respondents justified the admission on medical grounds. The court determined that the application had been overtaken by events, as the applicant was no longer detained, and therefore declined to issue any of the requested orders or grant costs. The file was closed without further remedy.
Court disposition
file closed; no order as to costs
02
Material facts
Parties
Mary Ntungire
Applicant Counsel: Moses KwobaNoel Nuwe
Applicant Counsel: Moses KwobaDr. Mutambabzuan
Respondent Counsel: George KalemeraButabika National Referral Mental Hospital
Respondent Counsel: George KalemeraAttorney General
Respondent Counsel: George Kalemera03
Procedural history
Posture
Miscellaneous Cause / Ruling
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the application is properly before the court and if the applicants are appropriate parties to the suit.
- 02
Whether the 1st applicant's right to seek private medical attention of her own choice at her own cost was violated.
- 03
Whether the 2nd respondent denied the right of registration of the 2nd applicant as Next of Kin.
- 04
What remedies are available to the parties.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicants argued that the 1st applicant was forcefully detained at Butabika National Referral Mental Hospital without her consent or that of her next of kin, and that drugs were administered without consent. They contended that her estranged husband was registered as next of kin against her wishes, and that requests to transfer her to a private facility for specialized treatment at the applicant's cost were refused. The continued detention was alleged to violate her fundamental rights under the Constitution, and punitive damages and costs were sought.
- Respondent
- The respondents maintained that the 1st applicant was admitted due to mental illness, with the consent of her husband and sisters, after assessment indicated she lacked capacity to consent. They argued that family consultations were held and the decision to keep her admitted was in her best interests. The respondents denied unlawful detention, stating the admission was medically justified and not a violation of rights.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Articles 20 and 23 of the Constitution of Uganda
Right to personal liberty and freedom from arbitrary detention.
- 02
Article 24 of the Constitution of Uganda
Right to freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.
- 03
Section 3 and 4 of the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act; Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act
Court's inherent powers to grant remedies for enforcement of human rights.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the central relief sought by the applicants—release of the 1st applicant from detention and access to private medical treatment—had been rendered moot by her discharge from Butabika National Referral Mental Hospital prior to the ruling. The evidence showed that the 1st applicant was admitted for mental health treatment with the involvement of her family, and the respondents justified the admission on medical grounds. The court determined that the application had been overtaken by events, as the applicant was no longer detained, and therefore declined to issue any of the requested orders or grant costs. The file was closed without further remedy.
Obiter and limits
- The court notes that the discharge of the applicant from the hospital resolved the immediate dispute between the parties.
- No order as to costs is made in light of the circumstances and the matter being overtaken by events.
Court disposition
file closed; no order as to costs
Source and reliance status
HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
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.
HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
Judgment
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN TI-IE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
lcIVrI- DrvrsroNl
MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 40 OF 2025
MARYNTUNGIRE I
NOE NUWE APPLICANTS 2
VERSUS
- i. DR. MUTAMBABzuAN - 2. BUTABIKA NATIONAL REFERAL MENTAL HOSPITAL
,
BEFORE: HON. JUSTICE EMMANUEL BAGUMA
RULING
This application is by notice of motion under Article 50 of the Constitution of Uganda, section 3 and 4 of the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act, section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act and order 52 of the CPR seeking for orders that; -
- l. The forceful detention of the l't Applicant by the 1't and 2nd Respondents without her consent and or the consent ofher next of kin is a violation ofher fundamental right and freedom and right to personal liberty guaranteed under Articles 20 and23 of the Constitution; - 2. The forceful detention and administration of drugs on the lst Applicant by the 1't and 2nd Respondents without her consent or consent ofher next of kin is a violation of her right to freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment protected by Article 24 of the Constitution; - 3. The 1't Applicant be produced in court and unconditionally released from the 1't and 2nd Respondents' detention; - 4. The l't Applicant be allowed access to private medical treatment at her cost and or her next of kin; - 5. The 2nd Respondent employees, consultants, agents, etc be forthwith restrained from administering drugs to the I't Applicant without her consent and or that ofher next ofkin;
<sup>3.</sup> ATTORNEYGENERAL RESPONDENTS
- 6. The Applicants be awarded punitive damages for violation of the 1't Applicant's fundamental rights; - 7. The Applicants be awarded costs of this application and interest.
The application is supported by the affidavit of Noel Nuwe, the 2''d applicant and brother to the lstapplicant whose details are on record but briefly stated that; -
- 1. On 22nd January 2025 at or around 3pm, I received a distress telephone call from the 1't Applicant that she had been kidnapped by a one Khalid and taken to the 2nd Respondent on allegations that she is mentally ill where she remains to date. - 2. I further received distress videos recorded by the 1'1 Applicant, while in the detention of the 2nd Respondent, calling upon whoever knows me to rely the information that she has been kidnapped and detained atthe2"d Respondent's facility by her husband. - 3. I was informed by the l't Applicant whose information I verily believe to be true that upon being detained by the 1't and 2''t Respondents, she requested that I be registered as her Next of Kin which request was ignored and her estranged husband a one Justus Karuhanga was instead registered as her Next of Kin. - 4. Upon arrival at the 2nd Respondent facility I found the l't Respondent's estranged husband with my two sisters and asked to take the l't Applicant to a private facility in Kenya for better and specialized treatment at my cost but they refused. - 5. The Respondents continued detention of the 1't Applicant amounts to violation of her fundamental rights.
In reply, the Respondents opposed the application and in an affidavit deponed by Dr. Juliet Nakku the executive Director at Butabika National Referral Mental Hospital (2nd Respondent) whose details are on record but briefly states that; -
- 1. I know the l't Applicant has been battling mental illness and was admitted on 17'h July 2024 and discharged on l ltr' September 2024 having improved. But on23'd January 2025,the l't applicant was brought back for treatment by her husband Justus Karuhanga and her two sisters and upon assessment her condition needed admission and she was admitted with the consent of her sisters and husband. - 2. The l'1 and 2'd applicants opposed the second admission and the I't Applicant's family was severally consulted wherein in severe meetings were
held on 29'h lanuary 2025 and 31't January 2025 in the presence of the 2"d applicant, the 1 't plaintiffs husband Justus Karuhanga and sisters to the 1't applicant and they agreed to keep the 1'1 applicant at the private ward of the 2nd Respondent.
3. The applicant is not unlawfully detained but rather admitted due to incapacity to consent as she has mental illness and it is her best interests to keep admitted at the 2nd Respondent Hospital.
Representation.
Counsel Moses Kwoba represented the applicants while counsel George Kalemera, represented the Respondents.
At hearing parties agreed to file written submissions.
During scheduling, parties agreed on 4 issues for court's determination to wit; -
- <sup>1</sup>. Whether or not this application is properly before this court and if the 1't and 2nd applicants are the appropriate parties to the suit. - 2. Whether or not the l't applicant's right to seek private medical attention of her own choice at her own cost was violated. - 3. Whether or not the 2nd respondent denied the right of registration of the 2nd applicant as Next of Kin. - 4. Remedies available to the parties.
Before this court could deliver the ruling in this matter, it received a letter from the Attorney General's chambers stating that they received communication from Butabika National Referral Mental Hospital (2nd respondent) that the 1't applicant was on the 7tr'April 2025 discharged from the Hospital. From the evidence on record and specifically paragraph l2 of the affidavit of Noel Nuwe requesting that the l't applicant be released so that she can go for private medical treatment. Indeed, the affidavit in reply by Dr. Juliet Nakku stated that the 1'1 applicant was brought to the 2nd Respondent for medical treatment by her husband and two sisters.
Following the letter from the 3'd Respondent dated 30th April 2025 stating that the I't applicant was discharged from the facility of the 2nd RespondentonTth April2025, given the orders that were being sought by the applicant, it is my considered view that this matter has been overtaken by events.
In the final result therefore, this file is closed with no order as to costs.
Dated, signed, sealed and delivered by email on this 8th day of May 2025.
lBaguma Judge.
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.