Uganda Case Law

Walusimbi & 5 Others v Attorney General

Walusimbi & 5 Others v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application 18 of 2024) [2025] UGHCICD 2 (20 March 2025)

Court

HC: International Crimes Division (Uganda)

Case number

Miscellaneous Application 18 of 2024

Judge

Wabwire, J

The Applicants failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that their rights to freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and to a fair, speedy and public hearing were violated. The Respondent's medical evidence and third-party statements were unrebutted and contradicted the Applicants' claims of torture. However, the Applicants established that they were detained at the Chieftaincy of Military Intelligence (CMI) facility, which is not authorized by law, and were denied access to legal counsel, next of kin, and medical attention. The Respondent admitted to prolonged de…

Source excerpt

• Personal Liberty Violation
• Unlawful Detention
• Right To Fair Hearing
• Torture And Inhuman Treatment
• Compensation For Rights Violation

Kyaterekera Grace v Attorney General (Complaint UHRC 506 of 2004)

Kyaterekera Grace v Attorney General (Complaint UHRC 506 of 2004) [2023] UGHRC 8 (25 May 2023)

Court

Uganda Human Rights Commission

Case number

Complaint UHRC 506 of 2004

Judges

Mariam Wangadya - Chairperson, Stephen Basaliza - Commissioner, Omara Apitta Lamex - Commissioner, Shifrah Lukwago - Commissioner

The Tribunal found that the complainant was detained for 35 days, with only the first 48 hours being lawful under the Constitution. The remaining 33 days constituted unlawful detention and a violation of the complainant's right to personal liberty. The respondent, as the employer of the state agents responsible for the detention, is vicariously liable for their actions. The complainant's evidence was corroborated by witnesses and documentary evidence, and the respondent failed to rebut the allegations or present a defence. The Tribunal therefore held that the complainant's rights were violate…

Source excerpt

• Personal Liberty Violation
• Unlawful Detention
• Vicarious Liability
• Compensation For Rights Violation

Ssekyondwa and Another v Matovu and 2 Others (Land Civil Suit No. 396 of 2020)

Ssekyondwa and Another v Matovu and 2 Others (Land Civil Suit No. 396 of 2020) [2022] UGHCLD 176 (9 September 2022)

Court

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

Case number

Land Civil Suit No. 396 of 2020

Judge

Namanya, Ag. J

The court found that the plaint, on its face and annexures, disclosed a cause of action by the 2nd plaintiff against the defendants, specifically regarding the alleged violation of his right to personal liberty through arrest and detention instigated by the defendants. The court held that the validity and enforceability of the sale and tenancy agreements raised by the defendants are factual matters requiring evidence and cannot be resolved at the preliminary objection stage. Therefore, the preliminary objections lacked merit and were disallowed.

Source excerpt

• Cause Of Action
• Preliminary Objection
• Sale Of Land Agreement
• Tenancy Agreement
• Personal Liberty Violation

Odongo Simon v Attorney General (Complaint No: UHRC/ SRT/092/2008)

Odongo Simon v Attorney General (Complaint No: UHRC/ SRT/092/2008) [2022] UGHRC 11 (24 January 2022)

Court

Uganda Human Rights Commission

Case number

Complaint No: UHRC/ SRT/092/2008

Judge

Shifrah Lukwago - Commissioner

The Tribunal found that Odongo Simon was tortured and unlawfully detained by state agents, and awarded UGX 22 million in compensation and exemplary damages.

• Torture And Cruel Inhuman Treatment
• Personal Liberty Violation
• Vicarious Liability Of State
• Compensation For Human Rights Violation
• Torture-and-cruel-treatment
• Personal-liberty

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

Nakaziba v Attorney General

Nakaziba v Attorney General (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 295 OF 2018) [2020] UGHCCD 31 (7 February 2020)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 295 OF 2018

Judge

Bashaija, J

The High Court of Uganda held that Tabisa Edisa Nakaziba’s arrest, detention, and treatment by police violated her rights to liberty and freedom from torture.

• Freedom From Torture
• Personal Liberty Violation
• Compensatory Damages
• Punitive Damages
• Unlawful Detention
• Redress For Rights Violation

Tugumusirize Benon v Attorney General (Complaint UHRC 22 of 2014)

Tugumusirize Benon v Attorney General (Complaint UHRC 22 of 2014) [2019] UGHRC 8 (28 October 2019)

Court

Uganda Human Rights Commission

Case number

Complaint UHRC 22 of 2014

Judge

Meddie Mulumba - Commissioner

The Tribunal found that Benon Tugumisirize was detained beyond the constitutional 48-hour limit and awarded compensation, interest, and costs-related relief.

• Personal Liberty Violation
• Unlawful Detention
• Vicarious Liability
• Personal-liberty
• Unlawful-detention
• Vicarious-liability

Okethcwinyu Fred v Attorney General (Complaint UHRC 42 of 2014)

Okethcwinyu Fred v Attorney General (Complaint UHRC 42 of 2014) [2019] UGHRC 6 (28 October 2019)

Court

Uganda Human Rights Commission

Case number

Complaint UHRC 42 of 2014

Judge

Meddie Mulumba - Commissioner

The Tribunal held that Fred Okethcwinyu was unlawfully detained for 16 days beyond the 48-hour limit and awarded UGX 3,200,000 in general damages.

• Personal Liberty Violation
• Illegal Detention
• Vicarious Liability
• Compensation For Rights Violation
• Personal-liberty
• Illegal-detention

L/CPL Walumbe Ronald v Attorney General (Complaint UHRC 99 of 2010)

L/CPL Walumbe Ronald v Attorney General (Complaint UHRC 99 of 2010) [2019] UGHRC 17 (15 October 2019)

Court

Uganda Human Rights Commission

Case number

Complaint UHRC 99 of 2010

Judge

Meddie Mulumba - Commissioner

The Complainant was unlawfully detained for a period of 35 days beyond the constitutionally permissible 48 hours, as corroborated by both his testimony and documentary evidence. The Respondent, through its agents (army soldiers and police officers), acted within the scope of their employment, making the Attorney General vicariously liable for the violation. The Tribunal found that the prolonged detention was oppressive and arbitrary, warranting both general and exemplary damages as compensation for the infringement of the Complainant's right to personal liberty under Article 23(4)(b) of the C…

Source excerpt

• Unlawful Detention
• Personal Liberty Violation
• Vicarious Liability
• Compensation For Rights Violation