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.
Ojok Francis Obiga & Okello David v Attorney General (Complaint UHRC 87 of 2007) [2024] UGHRC 5 (21 June 2024)
The tribunal found that the complainants proved, on the balance of probabilities, that police officers at Ongako Police Post subjected them to torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by beating them with sticks and batons, causing physical injuries and severe pain. The evidence was consistent and corroborated by medical testimony and the LC.1 Chairman's statement. The respondent's argument that bandits were responsible was rejected. The tribunal held that the right to protection from torture is absolute and cannot be justified under any circumstances. The respondent was held vicarious…
Source excerpt
Turyamuhika Geofrey Tumwine v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause 308 of 2019) [2023] UGHCCD 383 (22 September 2023)
The court found that the Applicant's right to personal liberty was violated when he was detained for ten days without being informed of the reason for his arrest, denied access to his lawyer, physician, and next of kin, and not produced before court within the constitutional 48-hour period. The Respondent failed to rebut these facts. The Applicant was also subjected to mental and psychological torture through blindfolding and incommunicado detention, which meets the statutory definition of torture. However, the Applicant did not prove violation of his right to practice his profession or to ha…
Source excerpt
Kabanda Isaac v Attorney General (Complaint UHRC 185 of 2009) [2023] UGHRC 6 (18 April 2023)
The Tribunal found that the shooting of the complainant by state agents was unintentional and did not meet the threshold for torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment as defined by law and international conventions. However, the respondent's agents unjustifiably inflicted bodily injury, violating the complainant's right to security of the person. The respondent is vicariously liable for the actions of its agents. The complainant is entitled to compensation for the physical, psychological, and socio-economic consequences of his injuries, including temporary disability and loss of gainf…
Source excerpt
Mackay v Attorney General and 3 Others (Misc Cause No. 12 of 2018) [2022] UGHCCD 104 (7 January 2022)
The application was dismissed primarily because it was served outside the prescribed time without any application for extension, in violation of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court found that the rules regarding service are of strict application and binding, and the applicant failed to comply. Additionally, the applicant did not provide sufficient and corroborated evidence to prove the alleged violation of his rights to freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. The supporting documents and photographs were deemed hearsay and inadmissible without affidavits from their aut…
Source excerpt
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)
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
Captain Mangeni (RO 08576) and Others v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 15 of 2021) [2021] UGHCCRD 56 (7 May 2021)
The court held that the application was fatally defective because it was brought against the wrong party (Uganda instead of the Attorney General) and under the wrong procedure. Section 11(2)(b) of the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act requires that allegations of infringement of non-derogable rights in ongoing criminal proceedings be raised before the trial court, not by way of a separate miscellaneous application. Furthermore, enforcement of human rights claims against government agencies must be instituted as civil proceedings against the Attorney General, not in a criminal case. The court fou…
Source excerpt
Nabawanuka Sekabembe Harriet v Attorney General (Complaint UHRC 19 of 2011) [2019] UGHRC 16 (7 February 2019)
The UHRC found that Nabawanuka Sekabembe Harriet was unlawfully detained for over a month and beaten by state agents, awarding her UGX 9.5 million.
Alacu v Attorney General (Complaint No: SRT/202/2007) [2016] UGHRC 24 (31 October 2016)
The Tribunal found that Alacu Steven was unlawfully detained and subjected to torture or cruel treatment by UPDF soldiers and police, awarding UGX 6,000,000 compensation.
