Wakilii

Bikooba Maate and 2 others v Attorney General [2019] UGHRC 27

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
Decision
Complaint allowed with damages awarded to all three complainants for torture by UPDF soldiers

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 subjected the complainants to acts of physical torture during arrest and detention on 6 June 2004, violating their constitutional right to freedom from torture under Article 24. The Attorney General was found vicariously liable for the soldiers' conduct in the course of their employment. General damages totalling UGX 9,000,000 were awarded to the three complainants.

Outcome

Complaint allowed with damages awarded to all three complainants for torture by UPDF soldiers

Facts

On 6 June 2004, UPDF soldiers attached to Kasubi army detach under the command of 2nd Lt Maregana Fred raided Bikwara Sub County investigating a murder case at Kinyara. The soldiers arrested the three complainants from their homes in Kakooga Village, Kibaale District. During arrest and detention, the soldiers beat the complainants severely with sticks, kicked them, tied them with ropes, and in one instance used a blunt knife to pierce the first complainant's hand. The complainants were dipped in a well along the way to Kyaterekera, then taken to Kagadi Police Post where they were detained overnight before being admitted to Kagadi Hospital for two weeks. The first complainant lost consciousness for five days and suffered internal organ damage. The second complainant lost four teeth. The third complainant, wife of the first complainant, was also beaten by five soldiers for about ten minutes.

Issues

  1. Whether the Complainants' right to freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment was violated?
  2. Whether the Respondent is vicariously liable?
  3. Whether the Complainants are entitled to any remedy?

Orders

  • Complaint allowed.
  • Respondent ordered to pay the 1st Complainant Bikooba Maate UGX 4,000,000 as general damages for violation of his right to freedom from torture.
  • Respondent ordered to pay the 2nd Complainant Kyaligonza Joseph UGX 3,000,000 as general damages for violation of his right to freedom from torture.
  • Respondent ordered to pay the 3rd Complainant Kyakimwa Evanis UGX 2,000,000 as general damages for violation of her right to freedom from torture.
  • Total sum of UGX 9,000,000 to attract interest at 10% per annum from the date of decision until payment in full.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Freedom from Torture — Article 24 — Non-derogable Right
The right to freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment guaranteed under Article 24 of the Constitution is a non-derogable right under Article 44, meaning it cannot be suspended or limited under any circumstances.
Human Rights — Torture — Definition and Threshold — Minimum Level of Severity
To qualify as cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, the conduct must reach a minimum level of severity, the assessment of which depends on all circumstances of the case including the duration of treatment, its physical or mental effects, and the sex, age and state of health of the victim.
Human Rights — Torture — Proof — Medical Evidence Not Essential
While medical evidence helps to prove the gravity of assault in torture cases, cogent oral evidence can suffice to establish torture where medical evidence is unavailable.
Tort Law — Vicarious Liability — Master and Servant — Course of Employment
A master is liable for tortious acts committed by his servant in the course of employment. An employee is in the course of employment if doing that which they are employed to do, even if adopting a wrong method or doing the act in a wrong manner.
Tort Law — Vicarious Liability — Attorney General — UPDF Soldiers
The Attorney General is vicariously liable under section 3(1)(a) of the Government Proceedings Act for acts of torture committed by UPDF soldiers in the course of their employment, including during arrest and investigation operations.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Torture — Assessment Factors
In assessing quantum of general damages for torture, the tribunal must take into consideration that acts of torture are non-derogable and the effect or severity of the acts on the complainant. General damages are compensatory in nature and intended to make good to the sufferer, as far as money can do, the losses suffered as the natural result of the wrong.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (25)

  • Salvatory Abuki and Another v Attorney General (SCCA No. 1 of 1998)
  • Hon. Okupa Ellijah and 2020 Others v Attorney General and 3 Others (HCMC No. 14 of 2005)
  • Byaruhanga Charles v Attorney General (UHRC/FPT/09/2007)
  • Mwanjuzi Ben v Attorney General (UHRC/MBA/12/2007)
  • Annet Beroto v Attorney General (UHRC/157/2005)
  • Okuda Clement v Attorney General (UHRC/MRT/15/2004)
  • Barugahare Abdallah v Attorney General (UHRC/MBR/026/2008)
  • Attorney General v Salvatori Abuki (SCCA No. 1 of 1998)
  • Huri-Laws v Nigeria, AfrCommHPR, Communication No. 225/1998
  • Fred Kainamura & Others vs Attorney General & Others 1994 KALR 92
  • Baluku Steven v Attorney General (UHRC/FPT/123/2003)
  • Senyonga Joseph v Attorney General (UHRC/570/2001)
  • Kagambo Magoba John v National Forestry Authority (UHRC/100/2007)
  • Okema John Francis v Attorney General (UHRC/GLU/08/2004)
  • Sserwanja Disan v Attorney General (UHRC/MSK/40/2011)
  • Paul Byekwaso v Attorney General (CACA No. 10 of 2002)
  • Muwonge vs Attorney General [1967] EA 18
  • Photo Productions Ltd vs Securicor Transport limited [1978] ALLER 146
  • Thunderbolt Technical Services Limited v Apedu Joseph and Kk Security (U) Limited (HCCS No. 340 of 2009)
  • Bagenda Dyabe Tommy v Pioneer Easy Bus Limited (HCCS No. 36 of 2016)
  • Barekye James v Attorney General (UHRC/MBA/84/2005)
  • Elalu Medi Sebi v Attorney General (UHRC/SRT/368/2003)
  • Pte Enock Ngomya v Attorney General (UHRC/405/2004)
  • Masiko Augustine v Attorney General (UHRC/FP/60/2007)
  • Okello James v Attorney General (HCCS No. 574 of 2003)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Bikooba Maate and 2 others v Attorney General 2019 UGHRC 27 (11 September 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.