Wakilii

Bukirwa Agnes v Uganda [2018] UGHRC 59

Tribunal · 2018 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 freedom from torture and inhuman treatment arising from police shooting during demonstration
Decision
Complaint allowed; complainant awarded damages for violation of right to freedom from torture and inhuman treatment

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 the complainant's right to freedom from torture and inhuman treatment was violated when police officers shot her with rubber bullets during a demonstration at the old taxi park. The Attorney General was found vicariously liable for the actions of police officers acting in the course of their employment. The complainant was awarded UGX 9,000,000 as general damages for the violation.

Outcome

Complaint allowed; complainant awarded damages for violation of right to freedom from torture and inhuman treatment

Facts

On 9 January 2012, the complainant was having lunch at her workplace at the old taxi park in Kampala when police deployed to manage a demonstration by taxi drivers ahead of the Lord Mayor's planned visit. During the police operation, the complainant heard a loud explosion and shortly after felt heat and pain. She was shot with rubber bullets fired by uniformed police officers. Her workmates carried her to a police patrol vehicle which took her to Mulago Hospital. She underwent surgery to remove plastic fragments from her body and was discharged after one day. She sustained wounds to her left temporal region, left arm, and left foot. She was unable to work for approximately one month and continued to suffer from headaches and short-term memory loss.

Issues

  1. Whether the Complainant's right to freedom from torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment was violated?
  2. Whether the Respondent is liable and if so whether the Respondent has any defence?
  3. Whether there is any remedy available to the Complainant?

Orders

  • The Complaint is allowed.
  • The Respondent is ordered to pay the Complainant a sum of UGX 9,000,000 as general damages for the violation of her right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
  • The sum shall attract interest at 10% from the date of this decision till payment in full.
  • Either party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Human Rights — Freedom from Torture — Police Use of Force — Shooting with Rubber Bullets During Demonstration
The shooting of a bystander with rubber bullets by police officers deployed to disperse a demonstration constitutes a violation of the right to freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Article 24 of the Constitution.
Tort Law — Vicarious Liability — Government Liability for Acts of Police Officers
Under section 3(1)(a) of the Government Proceedings Act, the Government is vicariously liable for torts committed by police officers acting in the course of their employment, even where the officers act negligently, wantonly, or contrary to orders, provided the conduct is a manner of carrying out what they were employed to do.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Failure to Appear or Adduce Evidence
Where a respondent fails to appear at a tribunal hearing despite receipt of summons and does not challenge the complainant's evidence through cross-examination or by adducing contrary evidence, the tribunal may accept the complainant's evidence as uncontroverted and find the claim proved on a balance of probabilities.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Assessment for Torture and Inhuman Treatment
In assessing general damages for violation of the right to freedom from torture and inhuman treatment, the tribunal considers the nature and extent of injuries sustained, the impact on the complainant's life including loss of income, and physical and mental suffering, even where medical expert evidence is not available to interpret medical documents.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (15)

  • John Patrick Besingiza & Another v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. MBR/009 of 2007)
  • Hakizimana Francis v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. CTR/10 of 2009)
  • Bagume John v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. SRT/208 of 2006)
  • Zirimu Johnson v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. CTR/344 of 2004)
  • Badru Kule v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. 219 of 2003)
  • Apollo Amon v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. 2006)
  • Muwonge v Attorney General [1967] EA 17
  • Okuda Clement v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. MRT/15 of 2004)
  • Oketha Dafala Valente v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 69 of 2004)
  • Ekeju Jacob v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. S/233 of 2005)
  • Enyimu Daniel v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. SRT/212 of 2007)
  • Fred Biryomumaisho v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. 253 of 2003)
  • Kampala District Land Board & George Mitala v Venansio Babweyana (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2007)
  • Assist (U) v Italian Asphalt & Haulage & Another (High Court Civil Suit No. 1291 of 1999)
  • Moses Kizige v Muzakawo Batolewo [1981] HCB

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Bukirwa Agnes v Uganda 2018 UGHRC 59 (27 March 2018)
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.