Wakilii

Gody Christopher v Attorney General and Others (Miscellaneous Cause 121 of 2026)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCD 173 · 2026 Application Granted ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum challenging alleged unlawful detention
Decision
Writ of habeas corpus issued requiring respondents to produce the applicant before the High Court on 5 June 2026

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

Held that where an affidavit based on information discloses the source of that information and distinguishes matters within the deponent's knowledge from those based on belief, it is competent under Order 19 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Where allegations of unlawful detention remain uncontroverted by the respondents, the court is entitled to infer that the detention exists. A writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum was issued directing the respondents to produce the applicant before the High Court.

Facts

On 21 April 2026 at about 8:30 pm, the applicant Gody Christopher (alias King Zale) was allegedly abducted near Firebase offices at Kamwokya by six armed men, some in civilian clothes and others in Special Forces Command and UPDF uniforms. The men arrived in a Toyota Hiace (drone), forcibly removed the applicant from a Toyota Alphard, and took him and another man away. The applicant's wife reported him missing at Kira Road Police Station (Reference No. SD: 34/04/2026). Searches at Wandegeya, Kira Road, and Kawempe Police Stations yielded no results. The applicant has not been seen, charged, or released since the alleged abduction. The Uganda Police Force stated in affidavit that they have no record of the applicant in their custody. The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, and 6th respondents did not file responses to the application.

Issues

  1. Whether the affidavit in support of the application is competent despite containing averments based on information from a third party who did not swear an affidavit.
  2. Whether the applicant has established that he is in the custody of the respondents or their agents.
  3. Whether the applicant is entitled to the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum.

Orders

  • A writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is issued directing the respondents to produce the applicant Gody Christopher alias King Zale before the High Court of Uganda at Kampala (Civil Division) on 05/06/2026 at 11:00 am.
  • No order as to costs.

Key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Right to Personal Liberty — Article 23(1) — Protection from Arbitrary Detention
The right to personal liberty under Article 23(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda is of profound importance and ensures that no person shall be deprived of personal liberty in an arbitrary manner.
Administrative Law — Habeas Corpus — Jurisdiction and Grounds for Issuance
For a writ of habeas corpus to issue, it must be proved that the subject person is in the legal or otherwise custody of the State or State agencies, and if custody is not firmly established, the matter falls under another realm such as police investigations or inquest proceedings.
Civil Procedure — Affidavit Evidence — Hearsay — Disclosure of Source of Information
An affidavit based on information must disclose the source of that information and distinguish matters within the deponent's own knowledge from those based on belief. Where the source is disclosed and the distinction is made, the affidavit is competent under Order 19 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Human Rights — Unlawful Detention — Burden of Proof — Uncontroverted Allegations
Where allegations of unlawful detention are made and remain uncontroverted by the respondents, the court is entitled to infer that the detention complained of exists.

Legislation cited (12)

  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda Article 23(1)
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda Article 23(7)
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda Article 23(9)
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda Article 44(d)
  • Judicature Act Cap 13 s.34(a)
  • Judicature Act s.38
  • Judicature (Habeas Corpus) Rules S.I 13-6 Rule 3
  • Judicature (Habeas Corpus) Rules S.I 13-6 Rule 8
  • Judicature (Habeas Corpus) Rules S.I 13-6 Rule 13
  • Evidence Act s.59
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 19 Rule 3
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 19 Rule 3(1)

Cases cited (6)

  • In re Sheik Abdul Karim Sentamu and Another (Constitutional Reference No. 7 of 1998)
  • Bintu Adan Osman 2 others Vs Director of Public Prosecutions 3 others [2020] KEHC 2098 (KLR)
  • Premchand Raichand Ltd and another v Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd and others [1969] 1 EA 514
  • Pacific Summit Hotel v DFCU Bank and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 9 of 2013)
  • Uganda Journalist Safety Committee and 2 Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 7 of 1997)
  • Khasim Abdaram v Mohamed Salain (Civil Appeal No. 102 of 2012)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.