Uganda Case Law

Mugabo James v Attorney General (Complaint UHRC 167 of 2009)

Mugabo James v Attorney General (Complaint UHRC 167 of 2009) [2025] UGHRC 5 (24 March 2025)

Court

Uganda Human Rights Commission

Case number

Complaint UHRC 167 of 2009

Judge

Mariam Wangadya - Chairperson, Simeo Muwanga Nsubuga - Commissioner, Jacklet Atuhaire Rwabukurukuru - Commissioner, Shifrah Lukwago - Commissioner

The tribunal found that the applicant was detained for a total of 16 days by agents of the respondent without being brought before a court within the constitutionally mandated 48 hours. The respondent admitted to part of the detention but failed to justify the entire period. The tribunal held that the detention was arbitrary, unjustified, and illegal, constituting a violation of the applicant's right to personal liberty under Article 23 of the Constitution. The respondent, as the employer of the police officers involved, was held vicariously liable for their actions. The tribunal further held…

Source excerpt

• Personal Liberty
• Unlawful Detention
• Vicarious Liability
• Compensation For Human Rights Violation

Alango Katorin v Attorney General (Complaint UHRC 16 of 2008)

Alango Katorin v Attorney General (Complaint UHRC 16 of 2008) [2025] UGHRC 1 (20 February 2025)

Court

Uganda Human Rights Commission

Case number

Complaint UHRC 16 of 2008

Judges

Mariam Wangadya - Chairperson, Stephen Basaliza - Commissioner, Omara Apitta Lamex - Commissioner, Crispin Kaheru - Commissioner

The tribunal found that a prisoner died after being taken from Erute Prison by police, held the state vicariously liable for the unlawful killing, and awarded damages.

• Right To Life
• State Liability
• Death In Custody
• Vicarious Liability
• Compensation For Human Rights Violation
• Right-to-life

Ojok Francis Obiga & Okello David v Attorney General (Complaint UHRC 87 of 2007)

Ojok Francis Obiga & Okello David v Attorney General (Complaint UHRC 87 of 2007) [2024] UGHRC 5 (21 June 2024)

Court

Uganda Human Rights Commission

Case number

Complaint UHRC 87 of 2007

Judges

Mariam Wangadya - Chairperson, Omara Apitta Lamex - Commissioner, Shifrah Lukwago - Commissioner, Simeo Muwanga Nsubuga - Commissioner

The tribunal found that the complainants proved, on the balance of probabilities, that police officers at Ongako Police Post subjected them to torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by beating them with sticks and batons, causing physical injuries and severe pain. The evidence was consistent and corroborated by medical testimony and the LC.1 Chairman's statement. The respondent's argument that bandits were responsible was rejected. The tribunal held that the right to protection from torture is absolute and cannot be justified under any circumstances. The respondent was held vicarious…

Source excerpt

• Torture And Cruel Treatment
• Vicarious Liability
• Compensation For Human Rights Violation

Nsereko V Attorney General and 15 Others

Nsereko V Attorney General and 15 Others (Miscellaneous Cause 386 of 2020) [2023] UGHCCD 192 (30 June 2023)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Miscellaneous Cause 386 of 2020

Judge

Musa Ssekaana, J

The High Court found that the applicant was subjected to torture, cruel and degrading treatment, forced labour, and unlawful 17-month detention, and awarded compensation.

• Torture And Cruel Inhuman Treatment
• Unlawful Arrest And Detention
• Forced Labour
• Compensation For Human Rights Violation
• Torture-and-cruel-inhuman-treatment
• Unlawful-detention

Siraji Eitu v Captain Taban Ali (Complaint UHRC 118 of 2003)

Siraji Eitu v Captain Taban Ali (Complaint UHRC 118 of 2003) [2022] UGHRC 3 (21 February 2022)

Court

Uganda Human Rights Commission

Case number

Complaint UHRC 118 of 2003

Judge

Shifrah Lukwago - Commissioner

The Tribunal found that Captain Taban Ali unlawfully assaulted Siraji Eitu and violated his right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.

• Freedom From Torture
• Cruel Inhuman Degrading Treatment
• Compensation For Human Rights Violation
• Burden Of Proof
• Non Derogable Rights
• Freedom-from-torture

Odongo Simon v Attorney General (Complaint No: UHRC/ SRT/092/2008)

Odongo Simon v Attorney General (Complaint No: UHRC/ SRT/092/2008) [2022] UGHRC 11 (24 January 2022)

Court

Uganda Human Rights Commission

Case number

Complaint No: UHRC/ SRT/092/2008

Judge

Shifrah Lukwago - Commissioner

The Tribunal found that Odongo Simon was tortured and unlawfully detained by state agents, and awarded UGX 22 million in compensation and exemplary damages.

• Torture And Cruel Inhuman Treatment
• Personal Liberty Violation
• Vicarious Liability Of State
• Compensation For Human Rights Violation
• Torture-and-cruel-treatment
• Personal-liberty

Karuhanga v Attorney General (compliant no. 36/2009)

Karuhanga v Attorney General (compliant no. 36/2009) [2022] UGHRC 17 (17 January 2022)

Court

Uganda Human Rights Commission

Case number

compliant no. 36/2009

Judge

Shifrah Lukwago - Commissioner

The Tribunal found that the complainant's right to personal liberty was violated by State agents when he was unlawfully detained for a total of 29 days without being brought before a court within the constitutionally mandated 48 hours. The respondent's repeated offers to settle and lack of substantive challenge to the facts amounted to an admission of liability. The Tribunal applied established principles for compensation, referencing precedent cases and the constitutional requirement for remedies in human rights violations. The complainant was also found to have suffered loss of income due t…

Source excerpt

• Personal Liberty Violation
• Illegal Detention
• Compensation For Human Rights Violation
• Loss Of Income

Agaba v Attorney General (Complaint No: UHRC/ FPT/52/2012)

Agaba v Attorney General (Complaint No: UHRC/ FPT/52/2012) [2022] UGHRC 20 (1 January 2022)

Court

Uganda Human Rights Commission

Case number

Complaint No: UHRC/ FPT/52/2012

Judge

Shifrah Lukwago - Commissioner

The Tribunal found that the applicant was subjected to severe pain and suffering intentionally inflicted by state agents (police officers and the LC1 defense secretary) during his arrest and detention. The respondent failed to rebut the applicant's evidence or provide any plausible explanation for the injuries sustained while in custody. Applying the principle of vicarious liability, the Attorney General, as representative of the state, is liable for the actions of its agents acting in the course of their employment. The right violated is non-derogable, and the applicant, being a minor at the…

Source excerpt

• Freedom From Torture
• State Liability
• Compensation For Human Rights Violation
• Vicarious Liability

Estate of Lomanat Lomuge v Attorney General (Complaint No: UHRC/MRT/51/2009)

Estate of Lomanat Lomuge v Attorney General (Complaint No: UHRC/MRT/51/2009) [2019] UGHRC 30 (24 October 2019)

Court

Uganda Human Rights Commission

Case number

Complaint No: UHRC/MRT/51/2009

Judge

Meddie Mulumba - Commissioner

The UHRC Tribunal held that UPDF soldiers unlawfully shot Lomanat Lomuge, violating his right to freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

• Freedom From Torture
• Vicarious Liability
• Use Of Force By Security Forces
• Compensation For Human Rights Violation
• Freedom-from-torture
• Human-rights-compensation

Ivan v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 025/2016)

Ivan v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 025/2016) [2019] AfCHPR 9 (28 March 2019)

Court

African Court on Human and Peoples Rights

Case number

Application No. 025/2016

Judge

Aboud J, Ben Achour J, Bensaoula J, Chizumila J, Matusse J, Mengue J, Mukamulisa J, Orè P, Tchikaya J

The Court found that the Respondent State violated Article 7(1)(c) of the African Charter by failing to provide the Applicant, who was indigent and charged with a serious offence carrying a severe penalty, with free legal aid during his criminal proceedings. The Court held that the right to defence under the Charter, interpreted in light of international standards, requires States to provide legal assistance in such circumstances irrespective of whether the accused requests it. The Court dismissed the Applicant's other allegations regarding defective evidence and failure to summon defence wit…

Source excerpt

• Fair Trial Rights
• Legal Aid
• Exhaustion Of Local Remedies
• Admissibility
• Compensation For Human Rights Violation