Wakilii

Candia v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause 158 of 2018)

High Court · [2024] UGHCCD 40 · 2024 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application under Article 50 of the Constitution for enforcement of fundamental rights concerning accessibility of court buildings for persons with disabilities
Decision
Application granted with declarations and order for progressive realization of accessibility rights

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 High Court held that the Government violated the constitutional rights of persons with disabilities by failing to make court buildings accessible. The Court found that inaccessible court premises, including the High Court at Mukono, violated the rights to equality, freedom from discrimination, and the right to practice one's profession. The Respondent was ordered to take reasonable progressive steps to realize accessibility rights and report to court within three years, but no damages were awarded as the matter was brought in public interest.

Outcome

Application granted with declarations and order for progressive realization of accessibility rights

Facts

Candia Emmanuel, an advocate practicing law and a wheelchair user, brought an application challenging the accessibility of court buildings in Uganda. On 15 May 2018, he attended Mukono High Court Circuit and found it housed in a two-storey building without ramps, lifts, or accessible facilities. Court staff had to serve him at the foot of the stairs. He cited multiple incidents: his wheelchair broke when being lifted at Gulu High Court, he experienced significant delays at Kampala High Court when requesting accessible courtrooms, and he failed to personally appear at the Supreme Court. In some instances, clients withdrew instructions after he briefed other advocates to appear on his behalf because he could not access courtrooms. The Respondent argued that courts were in rented premises, that staff accommodated disabled persons by moving to the ground floor, and that the Mukono matters were heard in the Chief Magistrate's Court which had a ramp.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondent has failed to put in place measures to make court premises accessible to persons with disabilities.
  2. Whether the failure by the Respondent to put in place measures to make court premises accessible to persons with disabilities is a violation of their right to equality and freedom from discrimination.
  3. Whether the failure by the Respondent to put in place measures to make court premises accessible to persons with disabilities is a violation of the Applicant's right to practice his profession.
  4. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • A declaration that the Respondent failed to put in place measures, at the impugned court premises, to make them accessible to persons with disabilities.
  • A declaration that the failure by the Respondent to put in place measures, at the impugned court premises, to make them accessible to persons with disabilities violated and continues to violate their right to equality and freedom from discrimination.
  • A declaration that the failure by the Respondent to put in place measures, at the impugned court premises, to make them accessible to persons with disabilities violated the Applicant's right to practice his profession.
  • The Respondent is hereby ordered to take reasonable steps for the progressive realization of the rights of persons with disabilities in as far as access to justice is concerned and report to court within 3 years on the progress made in that regard.
  • No orders to costs are made since this application was largely in public interest.

Rules and key headnotes

Fundamental Rights — Equality and Non-Discrimination — Persons with Disabilities — Accessibility of Court Buildings
The failure by the State to put in place measures to make court premises accessible to persons with disabilities, resulting in different treatment on the basis of disability, constitutes a violation of the constitutional right to equality and freedom from discrimination under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Rights of Persons with Disabilities — Accessibility Standards — International Obligations
Article 9 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, ratified by Uganda in 2008, mandates State Parties to take appropriate measures to ensure that persons with disability access, on an equal basis with others, all facilities and services open to the public, and to identify and eliminate obstacles and barriers to accessibility.
Fundamental Rights — Right to Practice Profession — Persons with Disabilities
The failure by the State to make court premises accessible to a lawyer with disability, forcing him to wait for special arrangements, be physically lifted, or brief other advocates, thereby causing clients to withdraw instructions, violates the constitutional right to practice one's profession under Article 40(2) of the Constitution.
State Obligations — Persons with Disabilities — Progressive Realization of Rights
Where a court finds that a specific right or freedom cannot be realized due to resource constraints, the court may order the Government to take measurable steps for the progressive realization of that right or freedom under section 13(2) of the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act 2019.
Remedies — Public Interest Litigation — Damages
Where a constitutional rights application is brought largely in public interest on behalf of a class of persons, it is inappropriate for the court to award damages to the individual applicant, and costs will not be ordered.

Legislation cited (17)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Candia v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause 158 of 2018) [2024] UGHCCD 40 (18 January 2024)
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.