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
Mary Ntungire and Another v Dr. Mutambabazi and Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 40 of 2025) [2025] UGHCCD 64 (8 May 2025)
The High Court closed this human rights application after the 1st applicant was discharged from hospital, finding the dispute had been overtaken by events.
Basobokwe & 5 Others v Monday & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Cause 5 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 325 (19 January 2024)
The court found, after a locus in quo visit and hearing from the 1st Applicant, that he was of sound mind, living freely with his wife at his chosen home, and not under any form of illegal detention by the Respondents. The 1st Applicant confirmed he had not been detained by the 2nd Applicant and that his children were free to visit him. The court determined that the underlying dispute was a family disagreement over the care and residence of the 1st Applicant, not a deprivation of liberty warranting habeas corpus relief. The court concluded that both the Applicants and Respondents were using t…
Source excerpt
Nakandi and Others v Uganda (Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 83 of 2020) [2021] UGHCCRD 40 (3 December 2021)
The court found that the applicants' allegations of torture and infringement of constitutional rights were not substantiated by direct evidence from the applicants themselves, but rather by hearsay affidavits from relatives. The court held that such serious allegations must be determined by the trial judge in the main case upon consideration of all evidence, not through an interlocutory application limited to affidavit evidence. The omnibus nature of the application was improper, and the aspect relating to bail was struck out. The remaining application for a permanent stay of prosecution was…
Source excerpt
Ochoko Joseph and Omondi Bernard v Attorney General (Complaint UHRC 144 of 2006) [2019] UGHRC 1 (12 March 2019)
The Tribunal found that the respondent, by entering into negotiations and agreeing to compensate the applicants, effectively admitted to the violation of their right to personal liberty. The applicants were unlawfully detained by state agents following a robbery incident, and the respondent did not contest the facts. The Tribunal accepted the amicable settlement reached between the parties, awarding each applicant UGX 3,000,000 as general damages for the violation. The issue of torture was dropped by mutual agreement, and the Tribunal saw no need for further litigation. Interest was awarded o…
Source excerpt
Isaak v Republic of Eritrea (Communication 428 of 2012) [2018] ACHPR 135 (27 April 2018)
The Commission found that the communication was barred by res judicata because the same parties, facts, and remedies had already been addressed and settled in Communication 275/03 – Article 19 v Eritrea. The Commission held that the applicant's continued detention and lack of implementation of previous recommendations do not create a new cause of action for the purposes of admissibility under Article 56(7) of the African Charter. Allegations of bias, breach of confidentiality, and politicisation were dismissed as unsubstantiated; the Commissioner's conduct was within her mandate and did not c…
Source excerpt
Lawyers Committee for Human Rights v Zaire (Communication 47 of 1990) [2017] ACHPR 3 (30 June 2017)
The African Commission found serious or massive violations in Zaire, including arbitrary arrest, detention, and torture, and referred the matter under Article 58(1) of the African Charter.
Attorney General of Republic of Rwanda v Rugumba (Appeal 1 of 2012) [2012] EACJ 10 (1 June 2012) (Appellate Division)
The EACJ Appellate Division upheld a finding that Rwanda breached the EAC Treaty by detaining Lt. Col. Ngabo without timely charge or disclosure, and dismissed the appeal.
Rugumba v Secretary General of the East African Community and Another [2011] EACJ 60 (30 November 2011) (First Instance Division)
The East African Court of Justice held that it has jurisdiction to interpret the Treaty, including Articles 6(d) and 7(2), where the conduct of a Partner State is alleged to breach principles of good governance and the rule of law, even if human rights issues are involved. The Applicant, as a resident of a Partner State, had locus standi to bring the Reference. The Reference was not time-barred because the unlawful detention was a continuous act, and the limitation period did not apply strictly. The Applicant was not required to exhaust local remedies in Rwanda before filing the Reference, as…
Source excerpt
Arab Organisation For Human Rights v Egypt (Communication 244 of 2001) [2003] ACHPR 39 (29 May 2003)
The African Commission closed the file after the applicant withdrew the communication following the domestic acquittal of the principal accused.
Institute for Human Rights and Development v Democratic Republic of Congo (Communication 238 of 2001) [2001] ACHPR 33 (27 October 2001)
The African Commission considered a communication alleging unlawful detention and mistreatment of Mr. Mboyo in Congo, but deferred admissibility pending further evidence on exhaustion of local remedies.
