Uganda Case Law

Nakamatte v Uganda

Nakamatte v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application 22 of 2024) [2024] UGHCICD 11 (5 November 2024)

Court

HC: International Crimes Division (Uganda)

Case number

Miscellaneous Application 22 of 2024

Judge

Komuhangi, J

The court found that the Applicant was detained for more than 48 hours before being produced in court, in violation of Article 23(4) of the Constitution, and that no explanation was provided for this delay. However, the Applicant failed to substantiate her allegations of torture, cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment with credible evidence, such as medical reports or corroborative testimony. The court accepted the Respondent's evidence that any injuries were minor and resulted from resistance during arrest, not torture. The court also determined that the proper party to be sued in such matt…

Source excerpt

• Illegal Detention
• Torture And Inhuman Treatment
• Pre Trial Rights
• Burden Of Proof
• Remedies For Rights Violations

Berwanaho Charles v Attorney General

Berwanaho Charles v Attorney General (Civil Suit 391 of 2018) [2023] UGHCCD 376 (10 November 2023)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Civil Suit 391 of 2018

Judge

Phillip Odoki, J

The Plaintiff was unlawfully arrested and detained by agents of the Defendant without reasonable suspicion and in a place not authorized by law, violating his constitutional rights. The Defendant failed to adduce evidence justifying the arrest or detention. The Plaintiff was subjected to battery and torture, as evidenced by unchallenged testimony and corroborated medical evidence. The Defendant is vicariously liable for the actions of its agents, who acted within the scope of their employment. The Plaintiff proved entitlement to special damages for medical expenses, transport, special diet, a…

Source excerpt

• Unlawful Arrest
• Illegal Detention
• Battery
• Torture
• Vicarious Liability
• Damages Assessment

Uganda v Kakube

Uganda v Kakube (Criminal Session Case 74 of 2022) [2023] UGHC 489 (29 June 2023)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Criminal Session Case 74 of 2022

Judge

Batema, J

The accused was a minor at the time of the alleged offence and was illegally detained and charged as an adult, contrary to the provisions of the Children Act. The law requires that a child should not be detained in an adult prison, should be remanded for no more than six months, and should have their trial completed within twelve months of taking plea. The accused spent nine years on remand, far exceeding the maximum permissible period for a juvenile offender, and his rights to a fair and expeditious hearing were violated. The trial, commenced more than three years after committal, is illegal…

Source excerpt

• Juvenile Justice
• Illegal Detention
• Remand Procedure
• Right To Fair Hearing

Uganda v Kakube Stone alias Topher

Uganda v Kakube Stone alias Topher (Criminal Session 74 of 2022) [2023] UGHC 504 (29 June 2023)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Criminal Session 74 of 2022

Judge

Batema, J

The High Court of Uganda discharged a juvenile accused after finding he had been illegally detained as an adult for nine years, in breach of children’s rights and trial timeliness rules.

• Juvenile Justice
• Illegal Detention
• Remand Procedure
• Children Rights
• Juvenile-justice
• Children-act

Ntwatwa Jackson v Attorney General & 3 Others

Ntwatwa Jackson v Attorney General & 3 Others (Civil Suit 136 of 2014) [2023] UGHCCD 371 (31 March 2023)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Civil Suit 136 of 2014

Judge

Phillip Odoki, J

The High Court found the plaintiff was unlawfully arrested, detained, and battered by the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants, but dismissed the claim against the Attorney General.

• Unlawful Arrest
• Illegal Detention
• Battery
• Vicarious Liability
• Damages
• Joint And Several Liability

Sankala v Attorney General (Complaint No: FPT/43/2013)

Sankala v Attorney General (Complaint No: FPT/43/2013) [2022] UGHRC 18 (20 January 2022)

Court

Uganda Human Rights Commission

Case number

Complaint No: FPT/43/2013

Judge

Shifrah Lukwago - Commissioner

The tribunal found that the complainant was detained for 18 days, which exceeded the constitutional limit of 48 hours for pre-trial detention. The police were acting within their duties in arresting the complainant on suspicion of murder, but failed to produce him before a court within the required time. The tribunal held that the excessive detention constituted a violation of the complainant's right to personal liberty under Article 23(4)(b) of the Constitution. Although the detention was partly for protective custody due to threats of mob justice, the police still had a duty to comply with…

Source excerpt

• Personal Liberty Violation
• Illegal Detention
• Compensation For Rights Violation

Karuhanga v Attorney General (compliant no. 36/2009)

Karuhanga v Attorney General (compliant no. 36/2009) [2022] UGHRC 17 (17 January 2022)

Court

Uganda Human Rights Commission

Case number

compliant no. 36/2009

Judge

Shifrah Lukwago - Commissioner

The Tribunal found that the complainant's right to personal liberty was violated by State agents when he was unlawfully detained for a total of 29 days without being brought before a court within the constitutionally mandated 48 hours. The respondent's repeated offers to settle and lack of substantive challenge to the facts amounted to an admission of liability. The Tribunal applied established principles for compensation, referencing precedent cases and the constitutional requirement for remedies in human rights violations. The complainant was also found to have suffered loss of income due t…

Source excerpt

• Personal Liberty Violation
• Illegal Detention
• Compensation For Human Rights Violation
• Loss Of Income

RA 65008 W011 Atunga Bantu and 7 Others v Director Public Prosecutions and Story

RA 65008 W011 Atunga Bantu and 7 Others v Director Public Prosecutions and Story (Miscellaneous Cause No. 247 of 2017) [2021] UGHC 49 (24 June 2021)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Cause No. 247 of 2017

The court found that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) is not a body corporate and cannot be sued, thus striking out the case against the DPP. On the substantive issues, the court held that the applicants failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that they were tortured, as their allegations were not corroborated by medical or other independent evidence. However, the court accepted the applicants' uncontroverted assertions that they were detained in military custody, an ungazetted place, for periods exceeding the constitutionally mandated 48 hours before being produced in court.…

Source excerpt

• Personal Liberty
• Illegal Detention
• Torture And Cruel Treatment
• Prosecutorial Discretion

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

Esoko & 3 Others v Attorney General & 4 Others

Esoko & 3 Others v Attorney General & 4 Others (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 42 OF 2019) [2020] UGHCCD 79 (30 April 2020)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 42 OF 2019

Judge

Musa Ssekaana, J

The applicants' constitutional right to personal liberty under Article 23(4) was violated when they were detained for five days without being produced in court, exceeding the constitutionally mandated 48-hour period. The respondents admitted this breach, and the evidence supported the finding. However, the applicants failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that they were denied access to family, lawyers, food, medical care, sanitary ware, or subjected to torture or inhuman and degrading treatment. The court relied on respondent affidavits, cross-examination, and a locus visit, which c…

Source excerpt

• Illegal Detention
• Compensation For Rights Violation
• Fundamental Rights Enforcement
• Punitive Damages
• Judicial Redress