Uganda Case Law

Kiiza v Attorney General & Another

Kiiza v Attorney General & Another (Miscellaneous Cause 37 of 2025) [2025] UGHCCD 50 (3 March 2025)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Miscellaneous Cause 37 of 2025

Judge

Douglas Karekona Singiza, J

The High Court Civil Division does not possess the requisite criminal appellate or revisionary jurisdiction to entertain a habeas corpus application challenging a conviction and sentence imposed by the General Court Martial. The proper procedure for challenging such a conviction is by way of judicial review or through the designated appellate court. The applicant's approach was procedurally incorrect, and the court cannot exercise powers outside its conferred jurisdiction. Consequently, the application for a writ of habeas corpus must fail.

Source excerpt

• Habeas Corpus
• Personal Liberty
• Jurisdiction Of High Court
• Procedure For Challenging Conviction

Rtd. Col. Dr. Kizza Besigye & Another v Attorney General & Another

Rtd. Col. Dr. Kizza Besigye & Another v Attorney General & Another (Miscellaneous Cause 31 of 2025) [2025] UGHCCD 29 (24 February 2025)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Miscellaneous Cause 31 of 2025

Judge

Douglas Karekona Singiza, J

The High Court dismissed a habeas corpus application by Dr Besigye and Haji Lutale, holding that they had been formally charged and remanded in a court of competent jurisdiction.

• Habeas Corpus
• Unlawful Detention
• Remand Warrants
• Court Martial Jurisdiction
• Personal Liberty
• Habeas-corpus

Basobokwe & 5 Others v Monday & 2 Others

Basobokwe & 5 Others v Monday & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Cause 5 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 325 (19 January 2024)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Cause 5 of 2023

Judge

Tom Chemutai, J

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

• Habeas Corpus
• Personal Liberty
• Detention Without Trial
• Family Disputes

Kalanzi v The Attorney General & 3 Others

Kalanzi v The Attorney General & 3 Others (Miscellaneous Cause 276 of 2022) [2023] UGHCCD 391 (15 November 2023)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Miscellaneous Cause 276 of 2022

Judge

Baguma, J

High Court habeas corpus application dismissed after the court found the applicant had already been released and was not in unlawful custody.

• Habeas Corpus
• Personal Liberty
• Unlawful Detention
• Affidavit Evidence
• Habeas-corpus
• Unlawful-detention

Kiwanuka and 17 Others v The Director General of Internal Security Organisation and Others (Misc Cause No. 9 of 2021)

Kiwanuka and 17 Others v The Director General of Internal Security Organisation and Others (Misc Cause No. 9 of 2021) [2021] UGHCCD 225 (7 April 2021)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Misc Cause No. 9 of 2021

Judge

Katamba Nkwanga, J

The High Court of Uganda at Masaka granted habeas corpus for Kasumba George, finding no evidence of lawful detention and ordering his production before a competent court.

• Habeas Corpus
• Personal Liberty
• Illegal Detention
• Judicial Review
• Habeas-corpus
• Personal-liberty

Kyagulanyi and Another v AG and Others (Misc Cause No. 16 of 2021)

Kyagulanyi and Another v AG and Others (Misc Cause No. 16 of 2021) [2021] UGHCCD 1 (23 January 2021)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Misc Cause No. 16 of 2021

Judge

Elubu, J

The court found that the applicants, particularly the 1st applicant, were subjected to unlawful restriction of their personal liberty by being confined to their home by security operatives without lawful justification or due process. The respondents' claim of providing protection did not negate the fact that the applicants' movements were restrained, amounting to deprivation of liberty. The court held that such indefinite restriction without production before a court or lawful order violated Article 23 of the Constitution and was not justified under the Police Act or public health regulations…

Source excerpt

• Personal Liberty
• Habeas Corpus
• Unlawful Detention
• Due Process
• Public Health Restrictions

Turyamusiima v Attorney General & Another

Turyamusiima v Attorney General & Another (Miscellaneous Application 64 of 2020) [2020] UGHCCD 230 (5 May 2020)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Miscellaneous Application 64 of 2020

Judge

Elubu, J

The court held that the Minister of Health, in enacting S.I. No. 55 of 2020, acted within her official mandate and there was no evidence of malice or personal participation in rights violations to justify personal liability under the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act, 2019. Civil proceedings against government must be brought against the Attorney General. The court further found that the exclusion of advocates from essential services was partially addressed by subsequent presidential guidelines allowing a quota of advocates to provide urgent legal services, rendering the main prayers moot. Howev…

Source excerpt

• Right To Fair Hearing
• Habeas Corpus
• Non Derogable Rights
• Covid 19 Regulations
• Judicial Review
• Public Health Restrictions

Semakula v Attorney General & DPP

Semakula v Attorney General & DPP (Civil Appeal 9 of 2012) [2015] UGCA 2021 (7 December 2015)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal 9 of 2012

Judge

Nshimye, JA, Aweri-Opio, JA, Tibatemwa, JA/ JCC

The Court of Appeal held that the General Court Martial has jurisdiction to try civilians who, by their conduct, become subject to military law under Section 119 of the UPDF Act, such as being found in unlawful possession of arms ordinarily the monopoly of the UPDF. The charge against the subject was properly defined under the Penal Code Act, and the punishment prescribed. The application for habeas corpus was not the appropriate procedure to challenge the legality of the detention, as the subject was lawfully convicted by a competent court. Any challenge to the jurisdiction of the General Co…

Source excerpt

• Habeas Corpus
• Jurisdiction Of Court Martial
• Unlawful Detention
• Fair Trial Rights

Okumu v Attorney General (Misc. Cause No.163 of 2013)

Okumu v Attorney General (Misc. Cause No.163 of 2013) [2014] UGHCCD 89 (3 July 2014)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Misc. Cause No.163 of 2013

The court held that all applicants are in lawful custody as the General Court Martial has jurisdiction to try civilians found in possession of firearms or ammunition, pursuant to Section 119 of the UPDF Act. The whereabouts of the applicants are known, and they are detained in gazetted centers. Habeas corpus is not available in these circumstances as the applicants have not demonstrated unlawful detention. The constitutionality of the proceedings under the UPDF Act cannot be determined by this court and must be referred to the Constitutional Court. Therefore, the applications for habeas corpu…

Source excerpt

• Habeas Corpus
• Jurisdiction Of General Court Martial
• Unlawful Detention
• Possession Of Firearms
• Rights Of Civilians
• Application Of Updf Act

In Re: Mudondo & Achipa (Both infants)

In Re: Mudondo & Achipa (Both infants) (Miscellaneous Cause No. 06 of 2014) [2014] UGHCFD 38 (3 July 2014)

Court

HC: Family Division (Uganda)

Case number

Miscellaneous Cause No. 06 of 2014

Judge

Tuhaise, J

The continued detention of the two minors by the Uganda Police under an unrecognized witness protection scheme was illegal and unconstitutional, as it did not conform to the requirements of the Constitution or the Children Act. The guardianship order granted to the 2nd applicant by the Magistrate Grade 1 Kalangala Family and Children Court was also unlawful, as the court lacked jurisdiction to grant guardianship to a non-Ugandan. The High Court, upon review of the relevant records and legal provisions, found that both the detention and the guardianship order were invalid. The children are to…

Source excerpt

• Habeas Corpus
• Guardianship Orders
• Child Custody
• Jurisdiction Of Magistrate
• Unlawful Detention