Uganda Case Law

Masereka v Attorney General & Maj. Gen. Kandiho

Masereka v Attorney General & Maj. Gen. Kandiho (Miscellaneous Cause 34 of 2022) [2025] UGHCCD 21 (14 February 2025)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Miscellaneous Cause 34 of 2022

Judge

Musa Ssekaana, J

The court found that the applicant was detained for 19 days in violation of Article 23(4)(b) of the Constitution, which requires that a person arrested on suspicion of a criminal offence be brought to court within 48 hours. The evidence, including photographs of wounds and a hospital discharge summary, established on the balance of probabilities that the applicant was subjected to torture, cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment while in detention, contrary to Articles 24 and 44 of the Constitution and Section 3 of the Prevention and Prohibition of Torture Act, 2012. The respondents failed to…

Source excerpt

• Torture And Inhuman Treatment
• Unlawful Detention
• Personal Liberty
• Damages For Rights Violation

Mukiibi & 20 Others v Kiyimba & 3 Others

Mukiibi & 20 Others v Kiyimba & 3 Others (Miscellaneous Cause 179 of 2020) [2024] UGHCCD 200 (22 November 2024)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Miscellaneous Cause 179 of 2020

Judge

Douglas Karekona Singiza, J

The court found that the 1st respondent (Hajji Abdul Kiyimba), acting as agent of the 3rd respondent (Kyengera Town Council), violated the 1st–20th applicants' rights to privacy and freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. The evidence, including admissible medical notes and video footage, established that applicants were unlawfully invaded, publicly humiliated, and physically mistreated at their residence without legal justification. The right to privacy was breached by unauthorized entry and exposure, and the right to freedom from torture was violated by physical and e…

Source excerpt

• Human Rights Enforcement
• Freedom From Torture
• Right To Privacy
• Non Discrimination
• Damages For Rights Violation
• Admissibility Of Evidence

Niwabine v Attorney General

Niwabine v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause 92 of 2021) [2023] UGHCCD 393 (9 November 2023)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Miscellaneous Cause 92 of 2021

Judge

Baguma, J

The High Court held that torture was not proved, but found that the applicant’s detention in unknown places violated his personal liberty and freedom of movement.

• Personal Liberty
• Freedom Of Movement
• Torture And Inhuman Treatment
• Damages For Rights Violation
• Personal-liberty
• Freedom-of-movement

Rajab Mamu v Attorney General (Complaint UHRC 56 of 2011)

Rajab Mamu v Attorney General (Complaint UHRC 56 of 2011) [2023] UGHRC 3 (4 September 2023)

Court

Uganda Human Rights Commission

Case number

Complaint UHRC 56 of 2011

Judges

Mariam Wangadya - Chairperson, Stephen Basaliza - Commissioner, Omara Apitta Lamex - Commissioner, Simeo Muwanga Nsubuga - Commissioner

The Tribunal found that police officers assaulted the complainant during arrest, causing lasting injury and disability, and awarded UGX 5,000,000 in damages.

• Torture And Inhuman Treatment
• Police Brutality
• Damages For Rights Violation
• Torture-and-inhuman-treatment
• Police-brutality
• Human-rights-damages

Hakyiri Peter v Attorney General (Complaint UHRC 51 of 2014)

Hakyiri Peter v Attorney General (Complaint UHRC 51 of 2014) [2022] UGHRC 5 (14 March 2022)

Court

Uganda Human Rights Commission

Case number

Complaint UHRC 51 of 2014

Judge

Shifrah Lukwago - Commissioner

The Tribunal found that police officers tortured the complainant and awarded UGX 7,000,000 in general damages against the Attorney General.

• Freedom From Torture
• Vicarious Liability
• Police Misconduct
• Damages For Rights Violation
• Freedom-from-torture
• Police-misconduct

Oluka v Bukedea District Local Government

Oluka v Bukedea District Local Government (Miscellaneous Cause No. 25 of 2020) [2021] UGHC 59 (8 July 2021)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Cause No. 25 of 2020

Judge

Adonyo, J

The respondent's failure to issue the applicant with an appointment letter on promotion from 2013 until 2020 was illegal, unconscionable, and a breach of constitutional duties. The delay was not justified by any proven ban on recruitment, and the respondent acted only after court proceedings commenced. This conduct infringed the applicant's constitutional right to employment, caused psychological torture, stagnated career growth, and loss of promotional opportunities. The applicant is entitled to compensation for these violations, including payment of all emoluments due, general damages for i…

Source excerpt

• Public Service Promotion
• Appointment Letters
• Constitutional Right To Work
• Emoluments And Benefits
• Damages For Rights Violation