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
Ojur Lawrence v Attorney General (Complaint UHRC 143 of 2009) [2025] UGHRC 6 (4 February 2025)
The tribunal found that police officers participated in torturing the complainant and awarded him damages, but held the state not liable for a UPDF soldier acting outside his duties.
No. 64861 PC Atusasiire v ACP Okalany and Others (Miscellaneous Cause 25 of 2021) [2024] UGHCCD 10 (12 January 2024)
The court found that the applicant failed to discharge the burden of proof required to establish that he was subjected to torture or inhuman and degrading treatment by the 1st and 2nd respondents. The evidence presented by the applicant was inconsistent, lacked credibility, and was not corroborated by medical or contemporaneous reports. The court also determined that the applicant was duly informed of the reasons for his summoning and detention, and there was no evidence that he requested access to a lawyer, relatives, or medical treatment while in custody. The applicant's allegations were fo…
Source excerpt
Bandonda V Captain Investments Ltd and Another (Civil Suit No. 493 of 2018) [2022] UGHCCD 245 (5 December 2022)
The court found that the Plaintiff's arrest and detention were unlawful as there was no reasonable suspicion of a criminal offence; the dispute was purely civil and commercial. The police, acting on the instigation of the 1st Defendant, effected an arrest and detention in violation of Article 23(1)(c) of the Constitution and Section 23(1) of the Police Act. The Plaintiff was detained beyond the constitutionally mandated 48 hours without being charged or released on bond, further violating his rights. Both Defendants were held vicariously liable for the actions of their officers and agents, as…
Source excerpt
Akena Martin v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 31 of 2020) [2022] UGHCCD 153 (31 August 2022)
The High Court found the Attorney General vicariously liable after a plaintiff was shot by police while they dispersed a protest, and awarded damages, interest, and costs.
Hakyiri Peter v Attorney General (Complaint UHRC 51 of 2014) [2022] UGHRC 5 (14 March 2022)
The Tribunal found that police officers tortured the complainant and awarded UGX 7,000,000 in general damages against the Attorney General.
Nabwami V Attorney General (CIVIL SUIT NO. 117 OF 2015) [2020] UGHCCD 96 (15 May 2020)
The court found that the police officer, acting in the course of his employment, fired a gun carelessly and injured the plaintiff, thereby breaching the duty of care owed to innocent civilians. The defendant, as employer, is vicariously liable for the negligent acts of its servant. The plaintiff satisfied all elements of negligence: duty, breach, and causation of damage. The defendant failed to present a substantive defence. The plaintiff's claim for special damages was rejected due to lack of specific pleading and proof, but general damages were awarded for pain, suffering, and incapacity re…
Source excerpt
Bikyahaga-Namata V Attorney General (Civil Suit No 228 of 2008) [2019] UGHCCD 123 (28 June 2019)
The court found that the deceased, Ronald Bikyahaga, died as a result of actions by police officers who were effecting an arrest, which is within the scope of their employment. The evidence, including the Inspector General of Police's condolence message, established that the death occurred at the hands of police officers. Applying the principle of vicarious liability, the court held that the defendant, as employer, is liable for the wrongful acts of its employees committed in the course of employment, even if those acts were illegal or contrary to orders. The court further held that the actio…
Source excerpt
Odong & Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 8 of 2017) [2018] UGSC 92 (17 December 2018)
The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeal properly re-evaluated the evidence and correctly upheld the convictions for corruptly accepting gratification and abuse of office. The evidence from PW1, PW2, and PW3 established that the appellants, acting as police officers, received 400,000 shillings from the complainant as an inducement to drop a forgery case, which constituted corrupt acceptance of gratification under Section 2(a) of the Anti-Corruption Act. The Court clarified that solicitation and acceptance are distinct elements, and proof of acceptance alone suffices for conviction. Th…
Source excerpt
Uganda v Ajuna & 2 Ors (HCT-00-AC-CN 18 of 2018) [2018] UGHCACD 2 (16 November 2018)
The High Court partly allowed Uganda’s appeal, set aside an acquittal, and convicted a police officer of abuse of office for improperly handling exhibit money.
Uganda v SP Ajuna Mark & 2 Ors (Anti-corruption Case 18 of 2018) [2018] UGHCACD 9 (16 November 2018)
The High Court upheld most of the acquittals but convicted D/SP Kasozi Jackson of abuse of office for arbitrarily distributing exhibit money recovered from a suspect.
