Share
Rajab Mamu v Attorney General (Complaint UHRC 56 of 2011) [2023] UGHRC 3 (4 September 2023)
- Citation
- [2023] UGHRC 3
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- Uganda Human Rights Commission
- Panel
- Mariam Wangadya - Chairperson, Stephen Basaliza - Commissioner, Omara Apitta Lamex - Commissioner, Simeo Muwanga Nsubuga - Commissioner
- Case number
- Complaint UHRC 56 of 2011
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Uganda Human Rights Commission
- Panel
- Mariam Wangadya - Chairperson, Stephen Basaliza - Commissioner, Omara Apitta Lamex - Commissioner, Simeo Muwanga Nsubuga - Commissioner
- Case number
- Complaint UHRC 56 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 complainant, an elderly man, was subjected to physical violence by police officers during arrest, resulting in permanent disability and loss of livelihood. The medical evidence was uncontested and established a 30% disability due to post-traumatic arthritis. The respondent failed to present any defence witnesses or rebut the complainant's testimony and medical evidence. The Tribunal held that the actions of the police constituted torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, in violation of Article 24 of the Constitution, Article 7 of the ICCPR, and Article 5 of the ACHPR. The complainant was entitled to general damages for the violation of his rights.
Court disposition
complaint_allowed
Orders
- The complaint is allowed.
- The respondent is ordered to pay the complainant UGX 5,000,000 as general damages for violation of his right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment.
- The general damages shall carry interest at 10% from the date of this decision until payment in full.
- Each party shall bear their own costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Rajab Mamu
ComplainantAttorney General
Respondent Counsel: Jane Frances NanvumaAmounts and remedies
- General Damages: UGX 5,000,000
- Interest Rate: 10
03
Procedural history
Posture
Human Rights Complaint / Final Decision
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the complainant's right to freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment was violated by state agents.
- 02
Whether the complainant is entitled to any remedies.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The complainant alleged that he was arrested by police officers, kicked and beaten with batons on his legs, resulting in severe injury and permanent disability. He contended that these actions constituted torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, violating his constitutional and international rights. He relied on medical evidence from Dr. Kyazze, who diagnosed him with post-traumatic arthritis and assessed his disability at 30%. The complainant also claimed loss of employment and income due to the injuries.
- Respondent
- The respondent, through Ms. Jane Frances Nanvuma, denied liability and argued that the complaint should be dismissed for lack of evidence. No defence witnesses were presented, but written submissions were filed challenging the sufficiency of the complainant's proof and disputing the occurrence of torture or inhuman treatment.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Article 24, Constitution of the Republic of Uganda
No person shall be subjected to any form of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
- 02
Article 7, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
No one shall be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
- 03
Article 5, African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (ACHPR)
All forms of exploitation and degradation of man, particularly torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment and treatment, shall be prohibited.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Tribunal found that the complainant, an elderly man, was subjected to physical violence by police officers during arrest, resulting in permanent disability and loss of livelihood. The medical evidence was uncontested and established a 30% disability due to post-traumatic arthritis. The respondent failed to present any defence witnesses or rebut the complainant's testimony and medical evidence. The Tribunal held that the actions of the police constituted torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, in violation of Article 24 of the Constitution, Article 7 of the ICCPR, and Article 5 of the ACHPR. The complainant was entitled to general damages for the violation of his rights.
Obiter and limits
- The Tribunal notes the importance of protecting vulnerable persons, especially the elderly, from abuse by state agents.
- The absence of a defence or cross-examination of key witnesses undermined the respondent's case.
- Medical evidence from an expert witness is crucial in establishing the extent of injury and disability in rights violation cases.
Court disposition
complaint_allowed
- The complaint is allowed.
- The respondent is ordered to pay the complainant UGX 5,000,000 as general damages for violation of his right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment.
- The general damages shall carry interest at 10% 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 TRIBUNAL HOLDEN AT ARUA COMPLAINT NO UHRC/056/2011
COMPLAINANT RAJAB MAMU $\begin{smallmatrix}&&&&&&&&&1\\0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0\\0&0&0&0&0&0$
$-$ AND-
RESPONDENT ATTORNEY GENERAL :::::::::::::::::::
CORAM:
$\mathbf{j}$
1. HON. MARIAM WANGADYA
2. HON. COL (RTD.) STEPHEN BASALIZA
3. HON. OMARA APITTA LAMEX
4. HON. SIMEO NSUBUGA
DECISION
The complainant brought this complaint alleging that on 15<sup>th</sup> December 2008, he was arrested by Police Officers attached to Kira Road Police Station on allegations of store breaking and stealing a laptop and machines. He said that during arrest, he was kicked by one of the police officers and he sustained severe injuries on his leg. He further stated MINIS that as a result of the kicks, he cannot walk properly for THEUTIONAL AFTER SE . FION
$\mathbf{1}$
$07$ Sur ZUZ3
$\star$
The complainant contended that the actions in issue amounted to violation of his right to protection from torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment.
$\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{S}}$
The respondent's representative, Ms. Jane Frances Nanvuma denied liability.
Issues
The issues for determination by the Tribunal are:
- 1. Whether the complainant's right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment was violated by state agents. - 2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any remedies.
This matter was heard by former Commissioners; Hon Joseph A. A. Etima (RIP) and Hon. Victoria Businge Rusoke. This decision is based on their record of proceedings. Seven hearings were held in which the complainant and his witnesses testified and only the complainant was cross-examined by the Respondent's counsel. The two witnesses to wit: Dr. Kyazze David (CW2) and Atanasi Ntwomwoho (CW3) were not cross-examined.
The respondent never presented any defence witnesses but filed written submissions wherein he moved the tribunal to dismiss the complaint for lack of evidence. The complainant had the duty to prove his case on a balance of probabilities.
- Whether the Complainant's right to freedom from torture or $1.$ cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment was violated by state agents - Article 24 of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda provides that "no person shall be subjected to any form of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".
Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) provides that no one shall be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Article 5 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (ACHPR) of 1986 provides that
"every individual shall have the right to the respect of the dignity inherent in a human being and to the recognition of his legal status. All forms of exploitation and degradation of man particularly slavery, slave trade, torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment and treatment shall be prohibited".
The complainant, was at the material time an elderly man. He was kicked and beaten with batons on his legs. The complainant testified that as a result of the beatings he is unable to walk normally and uses a walking stick. He also lost his job which was his only source of income. The expert witness, Dr. Kyazze diagnosed him with post-traumatic arthritis which placed his disability at 30%.
accordingly awards the complainant a $^-\rm of$ $sum$ tribunal The UGX5,000,000/= (Uganda Shillings Five Million only) as general damages for violation of his right to freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.
ORDERS:
- The Complaint is allowed. 1. - The Respondent is ordered to pay the Complainant a sum of UGX $2.$ 5,000,000/= (Uganda Shillings Five Million only) as general damages for violation of his right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment. - The general damages shall carry interest at 10% from the date of $3.$ this decision until payment in full. - Each party shall bear their own costs. $4.$
Either party not satisfied with this decision has the right to appeal to the High Court of Uganda within 30 days from the date hereof.
Dated at ARUA this .... $\mathcal{H}$ day of ....... September 2023.
muton
HON. MARIAM WANGADYA CHAIRPERSON
$\mathcal{L}$
HON. COL (RTD) STEPHEN BASALIZA MEMBER
HON. OMARA APITTA LAMEX MEMBER
HON. SIMEO NSUBUGA MEMBER
$\mathcal{F}_{\mathcal{F}_{\mathcal{F}_{\mathcal{F}}}}$
$\mathcal{A}^{\prime}$
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.