Wakilii

Adonyo Felix Blair v Attorney General of Uganda and Others [2026] UGHCCD 168

High Court · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum to produce detained police officer
Decision
Writ of habeas corpus issued; respondents ordered to produce applicant before court on 18 May 2026

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

Held that the applicant established on affidavit evidence that he was arrested by agents of the respondents and detained without charge at a safe house in Mbuya. The respondents failed to prove lawful detention or produce evidence of the applicant's whereabouts. The court found unlawful deprivation of personal liberty and issued a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum directing the respondents to produce the applicant before court.

Outcome

Writ of habeas corpus issued; respondents ordered to produce applicant before court on 18 May 2026

Facts

The applicant, a police inspector stationed at Akuru Kwe Police Outpost, was arrested around the end of March 2026 following an incident in which he and other officers apprehended suspects attempting to enter Uganda from South Sudan with approximately USD 205,000. The suspects were released on orders from superior officers and complained that less money was returned to them than had been seized. The applicant and other officers involved were subsequently arrested. The applicant's family was informed by police officers that he was being held at the Defence Intelligence and Security safe house in Mbuya. He had not been charged, produced before any court, or allowed access to family or lawyers. The respondents denied having custody of the applicant and stated they had checked all gazetted detention facilities without finding him.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant is in the unlawful custody of the respondents.
  2. Whether the applicant has established sufficient grounds for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum.
  3. Whether the applicant's right to personal liberty under Article 23(1) of the Constitution has been violated.

Orders

  • A writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is issued directing the respondents to produce the applicant Adonyo Felix Blair before the High Court of Uganda at Kampala (Civil Division) on Monday 18 May 2026 at 11:00 am.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Right to Personal Liberty — Habeas Corpus — Burden of Proof
In an application for habeas corpus, the general burden of proof rests on the applicant to establish that he is in the custody of the respondents, but once a prima facie case of detention is made out, the onus shifts to the detaining authority to establish the lawfulness of the deprivation of liberty.
Habeas Corpus — Standard of Proof — Incommunicado Detention
It would stretch the traditional requirements for a writ of habeas corpus too far to require an applicant to provide specific documentary evidence of detention where those holding the applicant provide no information; what is required is that the deponent convince the court that the apprehension and continued detention by the respondents' agents is unjustified.
Right to Personal Liberty — Absolute Nature of Habeas Corpus
The right to habeas corpus under Article 23(9) and Article 44(d) of the Constitution is an absolute right from which no limitation or derogation whatsoever is permitted and therefore there cannot be any justification for its restriction or violation.
Personal Liberty — Unlawful Detention — Duty of the State
Where there is no evidence that an applicant is held under any lawful means or has been charged with any offence, and the State provides no proof of searches of gazetted detention places or ongoing investigations, the court will find that a case for deprivation of the applicant's right to personal liberty without justification has been made out.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (3)

  • Rtd. Col. Dr. Kizza Besigye v Uganda (Criminal Misc. Application No. 228 of 2005)
  • Jovia Karuhanga v Inspector General of Police and 3 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 86 of 2013)
  • May Vs. Ferndale Institution, 2005 SCC 82 (CanLII), [2005] 3 SCR 809

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Adonyo Felix Blair v Attorney General of Uganda and Others 2026 UGHCCD 168 (13 May 2026)
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.