Wakilii

Acwany v Attorney General [2017] UGHRC 24

Tribunal · 2017 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 violation of right to life and property by UPDF soldiers
Decision
Complaint allowed; estate of deceased awarded UGX 40,000,000 in total damages with interest at court rate from date of decision until payment in full

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 unlawfully shot and killed Lowiny Lokwakou in violation of his constitutional right to life under Article 22(1). The killing did not fall within lawful exceptions and was not justified by allegations that the deceased was a habitual cattle raider. The Attorney General was held vicariously liable for the acts of UPDF soldiers acting in the course of their employment. The estate was awarded UGX 30,000,000 in general damages and UGX 10,000,000 in exemplary damages. The claim for violation of right to property was dismissed for lack of corroborating evidence.

Outcome

Complaint allowed; estate of deceased awarded UGX 40,000,000 in total damages with interest at court rate from date of decision until payment in full

Facts

On 3 March 2009, Lowiny Lokwakou was arrested by UPDF soldiers while on his way to identify cattle that had been rescued from suspected Matheniko warriors. He was taken to UPDF Brigade headquarters in Kotido. The following day, soldiers brought the deceased before village elders. When the deceased attempted to run, UPDF soldiers shot and killed him. The soldiers then rolled his body in a polythene bag and buried him in a shallow grave. The deceased's relatives exhumed the body to accord him a proper burial. The complainant, the deceased's mother, alleged that soldiers removed UGX 800,000 and a mobile phone from the deceased. A letter from the Brigade Commander admitted that soldiers shot Lowiny when he turned violent and tried to escape while being taken to hand over a gun allegedly in his possession. The deceased was in his 20s and left behind a pregnant wife.

Issues

  1. Whether the victim Lowiny Lokwakou's right to life was violated by the Respondent's agents?
  2. Whether the victim's right to property was violated?
  3. Whether the Respondent (Attorney General) is liable for the violation of the victim's right to life?
  4. Whether there are any remedies available to the Complainant?

Orders

  • The complaint is allowed.
  • The Respondent is ordered to pay to the estate of the Late Lowiny Lokwakou a sum of UGX 30,000,000 as general damages for the violation of his right to life.
  • The Respondent is ordered to pay to the estate of the Late Lowiny Lokwakou a sum of UGX 10,000,000 as exemplary damages.
  • The said total sum of UGX 40,000,000 shall carry interest at Court Rate from the date of the decision until payment in full.

Rules and key headnotes

Right to Life — Inalienability — Human Rights Cannot Be Lost by Conduct
Human rights are inalienable and cannot be lost by virtue of the way a person acts. Even if a person is alleged to be a habitual criminal, security operatives have no legal justification to take away that person's life in a manner that does not fall within the constitutional exceptions under Article 22(1).
Right to Life — Article 22(1) — Lawful Exceptions
The right to life under Article 22(1) of the Constitution is not absolute. It may lawfully be taken only in execution of a death sentence passed in a fair trial by a competent court and confirmed by the highest appellate court, or in self-defence where reasonable and proportionate force is warranted. A killing that does not fall within these exceptions is unlawful.
Right to Life — Burden of Proof — Elements to Establish Violation
To sustain a case of violation of the right to life, a complainant must prove on a balance of probabilities that the respondent's agents caused the deceased's death and that the death was unlawfully caused.
Security Forces — Duty to Respect Human Rights — Article 221
Article 221 of the Constitution places a duty upon members of the Uganda People's Defence Forces to observe and respect human rights and freedoms in the performance of their functions. Security operatives cannot justify violations of the right to life by arguing that victims are criminals who need to be dealt with.
Vicarious Liability — Government Liability for Acts of Security Forces
For the doctrine of vicarious liability to apply, there must be a relationship of employer and employee, the tort must be committed by the employee, and it must be committed in the course of the employee's employment. Where UPDF soldiers act in the course of their employment, the Attorney General is vicariously liable for their acts and omissions under section 3(1)(a) of the Government Proceedings Act.
Exemplary Damages — Purpose and Justification
Exemplary damages are not to enrich the complainant but to punish the respondent and deter it from repeating its conduct. Where security agents act unconstitutionally, arbitrarily, and oppressively in violation of fundamental rights, exemplary damages may be awarded on top of general damages as deterrence.
Right to Property — Burden of Proof — Corroboration Required
To prove violation of the right to property under Article 26(1) of the Constitution, a complainant must prove that the deceased had ownership or possession of the property at the material time and that the property was unlawfully taken by the respondent's agents. In the absence of corroborating evidence, the claim will fail.

Legislation cited (19)

Cases cited (16)

  • Miller v Minister of Pensions [1942] 2 All ER 272
  • Okello Tom Ibrahim & Another v Attorney General (UHRC/G/88/2005)
  • Betty Tibaleka & 2 Others v Dr. C.R Vincent Karuhanga [1995] KALR 904
  • Alyao Richard v Attorney General (UHRC/GLU/956/1998)
  • Zirimu Johnson v Attorney General (UHRC/3447/2004)
  • Kakooza JB v Electoral Commission & Another [2008] KALR 138
  • James Rwanyarare & Patrick Muhumza & Others (UHRC 304/1999)
  • Muwonge v Attorney General [1967] EA 17
  • Thunderbolt Technical Services v Apedu Joseph & KK Security (U) Limited (HCCS 340 of 2009)
  • Kyarimpa Annet v Attorney General (UHRC/FPT/080/2004)
  • Mugisa Juma v Attorney General (UHRC/FPT/144/2003)
  • Sam Akankwasa v Attorney General (HCCS 202 of 2013)
  • Dr. Nganwa William & Another v Attorney General (HCCS 640 of 2005)
  • Matsiko Silagi Bernard & Mbagukire Peter v Attorney General (HCCS 383 of 2002)
  • Nabukenya Margaret v Attorney General (UHRC/JJA 103/2004)
  • Okello James v Attorney General (HCCS 574 of 2003)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Acwany v Attorney General 2017 UGHRC 24 (16 October 2017)
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.