Wakilii

Acan Patricia and Another v Attorney General and Another [2019] UGHRC 64

Tribunal · 2019 Complaint Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Human rights complaint before the Uganda Human Rights Commission Tribunal alleging torture by UPDF soldiers and UWA game rangers
Decision
Complaint allowed with damages awarded to both complainants for torture by state agents

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

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

The Tribunal held that UPDF soldiers and Uganda Wildlife Authority game rangers subjected the complainants to physical torture by beating and cutting them with pangas during an operation to recover a firearm. Both the Attorney General and Uganda Wildlife Authority were found jointly and vicariously liable for the acts of torture committed by their agents. The Tribunal awarded general damages totalling UGX 18,000,000 to the two complainants for violation of their constitutional right to freedom from torture under Articles 24 and 44(a) of the Constitution.

Outcome

Complaint allowed with damages awarded to both complainants for torture by state agents

Facts

On 9 October 2011 at approximately 7:00 am, Acan Patricia and Atimango Judith were cutting grass in Paten Central Village, Wadelai Sub County when they were approached by a joint force of approximately 18 UPDF soldiers and Uganda Wildlife Authority game rangers in uniform. The force was conducting an operation to recover a firearm from one Tofa Ocircan who was suspected of illegal possession of a weapon used to kill elephants. The soldiers and rangers beat the complainants with pangas and sticks for approximately two hours. Acan Patricia sustained cut wounds on her left wrist requiring stitches and a bruise on her right thigh. She was two months pregnant at the time and suffered a miscarriage three days later. Atimango Judith sustained injuries to her back and neck. Both complainants sought medical attention at Wadelai Health Centre III. The complainants testified they did not know Tofa Ocircan and were beaten without reason. A witness who had transported them by boat observed the beatings from a tree where he had hidden. Medical evidence confirmed the injuries sustained by the first complainant.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondents' agents violated the Complainants' right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment?
  2. Whether the Respondents are liable?
  3. Whether there are any remedies available to the Complainants?

Orders

  • Complaint allowed.
  • 1st Respondent ordered to pay 1st Complainant (Acan Patricia) UGX 2,000,000 as general damages.
  • 2nd Respondent ordered to pay 1st Complainant (Acan Patricia) UGX 8,000,000 as general damages.
  • 1st Respondent ordered to pay 2nd Complainant (Atimango Judith) UGX 2,000,000 as general damages.
  • 2nd Respondent ordered to pay 2nd Complainant (Atimango Judith) UGX 6,000,000 as general damages.
  • All sums to attract interest at 10% per annum from date of decision until payment in full.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Human Rights — Freedom from Torture — Physical Beating and Cutting with Pangas — Constitutional Protection
The right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is a non-derogable right protected under Articles 24 and 44(a) of the Constitution of Uganda. There are no exceptional circumstances whatsoever to justify torture.
Human Rights — Torture — Elements — Severity of Pain and Intentional Infliction
For an act to amount to torture, not only must there be a certain severity in pain and suffering, the treatment must also be intentionally inflicted for a prohibited purpose. The distinction between torture and inhuman or degrading treatment lies in the difference in the intensity of suffering inflicted.
Tort Law — Vicarious Liability — Master and Servant — Acts Done in Course of Employment
A master is vicariously liable for the actions of its servant done in the course of employment. Where UPDF soldiers are deployed to assist another state agency in an operation, the Attorney General remains vicariously liable for the soldiers' actions committed in the course of their duty.
Administrative Law — Statutory Bodies — Uganda Wildlife Authority — Vicarious Liability for Agents
The Uganda Wildlife Authority, established as a body corporate under section 4(1) and (2) of the Uganda Wildlife Act Cap 200, is vicariously liable for acts of torture committed by its game rangers deployed in the course of official operations.
Tort Law — Vicarious Liability — Joint Operations — Multiple Respondents
Where acts of torture are committed by a joint force of soldiers and game rangers under the control of different state entities, both the Attorney General and the statutory body deploying the rangers are jointly and vicariously liable for the violations.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (13)

  • Christopher Bamweyana v Herman Byanguye (HCCA No. 24 of 2017)
  • Issa Wazembe v Attorney General (HCCS No. 154 of 2016)
  • Byamukama Akim v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. 161 of 2004)
  • Ireland v United Kingdom (ECHR Application No. 5310/71)
  • Muwonge v Attorney General [1967] EA 7
  • Attorney General v Dan Kisembo (HCCA No. 95 of 2014)
  • Charles Harry Twagira v Attorney General and Samuel Kyomukama (HCCS No. 836 of 2006)
  • Lt. (Rtd) George Kiggundu v Attorney General (HCCS No. 386 of 2014)
  • Ojul P'Otobi v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. G/168/2003)
  • Muwonge v Attorney General [1967] EA 541
  • William Abura v Attorney General (HCCS No. 56 of 2001)
  • Ongu Tirence v Attorney General (HCCS No. 104 of 2001)
  • Uganda v Abdallah Nassur [1982] HCB

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Acan Patricia and Another v Attorney General and Another 2019 UGHRC 64 (8 October 2019)
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.