Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Uganda decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Sserungoji v Ssekyanzi (Miscellaneous Cause 28 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 315 (22 May 2025)
The High Court struck out an out-of-time reply, found unlawful withholding of land titles violated the applicant’s property rights, and granted relief with reduced compensation.
Walusimbi & 5 Others v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application 18 of 2024) [2025] UGHCICD 2 (20 March 2025)
The Applicants failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that their rights to freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and to a fair, speedy and public hearing were violated. The Respondent's medical evidence and third-party statements were unrebutted and contradicted the Applicants' claims of torture. However, the Applicants established that they were detained at the Chieftaincy of Military Intelligence (CMI) facility, which is not authorized by law, and were denied access to legal counsel, next of kin, and medical attention. The Respondent admitted to prolonged de…
Source excerpt
Phillip Bayisirirya v Attorney General (Complaint UHRC 67 of 2016) [2024] UGHRC 4 (27 November 2024)
The UHRC Tribunal held that Bayisirirya’s 14-day detention without court appearance was unlawful, awarding him UGX 1,000,000 in general damages.
Lutaaya v Attorney General and 6 Others (Miscellaneous Cause 256 of 2021) [2024] UGHCCD 131 (20 August 2024)
The High Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine applications for enforcement of human rights violations. The Applicant's evidence, which was unchallenged due to the Respondents' failure to file a timely affidavit in reply, established that he was unlawfully detained for more than 48 hours and subjected to torture by police officers acting in the course of their employment. The actions of the Respondents constituted violations of the Applicant's non-derogable constitutional rights to freedom from torture and inhuman treatment, as well as his right to liberty. The Attorney General, as the…
Source excerpt
Mutama Richard & Others v Attorney General (Complaint UHRC 70 of 2009) [2024] UGHRC 6 (24 June 2024)
The tribunal found unlawful prolonged detention of three complainants, but dismissed their torture claims. Compensation was awarded for violation of personal liberty.
Bukenya Umar v Attorney General (Complaint UHRC 349 of 2004) [2024] UGHRC 1 (20 May 2024)
The tribunal rejected the torture claim for lack of credible proof, but found unlawful detention for 43 days and awarded UGX 3,000,000 in compensation.
Okello Francis Ongom v Attorney General (Complaint UHRC 109 of 2009) [2023] UGHRC 2 (7 December 2023)
The tribunal found that the complainant was subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by UPDF soldiers on the orders of Lt. Otim Bosco. Although partial compensation was paid, the respondent failed to pay the agreed balance. The tribunal considered the complainant's prior injury from a gunshot wound, which was not caused by the beating in question. Nonetheless, the tribunal held that the beating constituted a violation of the complainant's right to freedom from torture and ordered general damages as compensation.
Source excerpt
Turyamuhika Geofrey Tumwine v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause 308 of 2019) [2023] UGHCCD 383 (22 September 2023)
The court found that the Applicant's right to personal liberty was violated when he was detained for ten days without being informed of the reason for his arrest, denied access to his lawyer, physician, and next of kin, and not produced before court within the constitutional 48-hour period. The Respondent failed to rebut these facts. The Applicant was also subjected to mental and psychological torture through blindfolding and incommunicado detention, which meets the statutory definition of torture. However, the Applicant did not prove violation of his right to practice his profession or to ha…
Source excerpt
Arodu Robert v Attorney General (Complaint UHRC 55 of 2011) [2023] UGHRC 1 (4 September 2023)
The Tribunal found that the Complainant was subjected to severe physical and psychological torture by RRU operatives, resulting in 12% permanent disability, and was detained for 25 days before being produced in court, far exceeding the constitutional 48-hour limit. The Respondent failed to rebut the evidence, which was corroborated by medical and eyewitness testimony. The acts constituted violations of the Complainant's non-derogable right to freedom from torture and his right to personal liberty under the Constitution. The Tribunal held the Respondent vicariously liable and awarded compensat…
Source excerpt
Kyaterekera Grace v Attorney General (Complaint UHRC 506 of 2004) [2023] UGHRC 8 (25 May 2023)
The Tribunal found that the complainant was detained for 35 days, with only the first 48 hours being lawful under the Constitution. The remaining 33 days constituted unlawful detention and a violation of the complainant's right to personal liberty. The respondent, as the employer of the state agents responsible for the detention, is vicariously liable for their actions. The complainant's evidence was corroborated by witnesses and documentary evidence, and the respondent failed to rebut the allegations or present a defence. The Tribunal therefore held that the complainant's rights were violate…
Source excerpt
