Wakilii

Barigye Bob v Alex Micwemirungyi and Others (Miscellaneous Cause 133 of 2024)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCD 120 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for enforcement of human rights under the Human Rights Enforcement Act following arrest and detention during a protest
Decision
Application dismissed with costs to the respondents

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's human rights were not violated. The applicant organised a public demonstration without giving the mandatory three-day notice to police as required under the Public Order Management Act section 5(1). The arrest was lawful under Article 23(1)(c) and section 23(1) of the Police Act on reasonable suspicion of committing an offence. The applicant failed to adduce cogent evidence of torture or mistreatment. The applicant was released within 48 hours and was able to contact his lawyer who applied for police bond. Application dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs to the respondents

Facts

On 27 May 2024, the applicant and other activists assembled outside the Chinese Embassy in Kampala to deliver a petition concerning human rights and environmental violations related to the East African Crude Oil Pipeline project. The Chinese Embassy security expressed concern and requested police intervention. Police officers from Jinja Road Police Station, led by the respondents, arrived and requested the protestors to disperse. When they refused, police arrested the applicant and others on suspicion of unlawful assembly. The applicant alleged he was beaten, pushed onto a police car, stepped on, and subjected to degrading treatment including forced undressing and bathing in unsanitary conditions at the police station. He was detained from 27 to 28 May 2024 and charged with common nuisance. The applicant's lawyer applied for and obtained police bond on 28 May 2024. The applicant did not give the mandatory three-day advance notice to police required under the Public Order Management Act for public meetings.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant's human rights were violated?
  2. Whether the respondents are liable for the violations?
  3. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Freedom of Assembly — Public Order Management Act — Requirement of Advance Notice
The right to freedom of assembly and peaceful demonstration under Article 29 of the Constitution is not absolute and is subject to limitations under Article 43. The Public Order Management Act section 5(1) requires organisers to give written notice to police at least three days but not more than fifteen days before a public meeting. Failure to give such notice renders the assembly unlawful and justifies police intervention.
Constitutional Law — Public Order Management Act — Regulatory vs Prohibitory Powers
While section 8 of the Public Order Management Act was declared unconstitutional for giving police prohibitory powers to stop and prevent public meetings, section 5 requiring advance notification remains valid and mandatory. The constitutional cases nullified police powers to prohibit gatherings but did not invalidate the notification requirement.
Human Rights — Freedom from Torture — Burden of Proof — Requirement for Cogent Evidence
For an act to amount to torture under Article 24 of the Constitution and the Prevention and Prohibition of Torture Act, there must be severe pain or suffering intentionally inflicted for a prohibited purpose. An applicant alleging torture has the burden to adduce cogent evidence proving the allegations on a balance of probabilities. Mere allegations without supporting evidence are insufficient.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Arrest — Lawful Arrest on Reasonable Suspicion
Under Article 23(1)(c) of the Constitution and section 23(1) of the Police Act, it is lawful to arrest a person on reasonable suspicion that they have committed a criminal offence. Where a person organises a public demonstration without the mandatory notice to police, police have justification to arrest them for committing an offence.
Constitutional Law — Personal Liberty — Rights on Arrest — Contradictory Evidence
Article 23(3) and (5) of the Constitution require that arrested persons be informed of reasons for arrest and allowed to contact lawyers and next of kin. Where an applicant claims he was denied contact with his lawyer but his own evidence shows his lawyer applied for police bond during detention, the allegation is contradicted by his own evidence and cannot stand.

Legislation cited (24)

Cases cited (5)

  • Maruri Venkata and 2 Others v Bank of India (U) Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 804 of 2018)
  • Muwanga Kivumbi v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 9 of 2005)
  • Human Rights Network and Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 56 of 2013)
  • Mackay v Attorney General and 3 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 12 of 2018)
  • Agaba Kennethy v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 247 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Barigye Bob v Alex Micwemirungyi and Others (Miscellaneous Cause 133 of 2024) [2026] UGHCCD 120 (1 April 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.