Uganda Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

Uganda Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page: 1 court collection
Last checked: 18 Sep 2026, 02:51 UTC

Results update automatically as you type.

Judge

Topic

Legal area

Court

Uganda decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters

20 Aug 2024

Constitutional Law [2024] UGHCCD 131

Lutaaya v Attorney General and 6 Others

Lutaaya v Attorney General and 6 Others (Miscellaneous Cause 256 of 2021) [2024] UGHCCD 131 (20 August 2024)

Court: HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
Case number: Miscellaneous Cause 256 of 2021
Judge: Nambayo, J

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

Torture And Inhuman Treatment
Detention Beyond 48 Hours
Vicarious Liability Of State
Compensation For Rights Violation
Procedural Timelines For Affidavits
Search And Seizure Without Warrant

Read case analysis

8 Jul 2024

Constitutional Law [2024] UGHCCD 108

Sserunkuma and Another v Attorney General

Sserunkuma and Another v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause 102 of 2021) [2024] UGHCCD 108 (8 July 2024)

Court: HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
Case number: Miscellaneous Cause 102 of 2021
Judge: Boniface Wamala, J

The court found that the Applicants' rights to personal liberty were violated by the Respondent's agents in three respects: (1) the 2nd Applicant was not informed of the reason for his arrest, (2) both Applicants were not informed of their right to access a lawyer of their choice, and (3) both were detained for a period exceeding 48 hours before being brought to court. The Respondent's justification for the delay, based on ongoing investigations, was rejected as legally and factually unsound, especially since the charge sheet had already been sanctioned prior to arrest. The court held that th…