Wakilii

Edwin Asiimwe and Others v Attorney General and Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 6 of 2026)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCD 34 · 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 under Articles 23, 28 and 44 of the Constitution and Order 52 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Decision
Writ of habeas corpus issued directing respondents to produce the applicants before court on 18 February 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

The High Court granted a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum where applicants were arrested on 2 December 2025, detained for 29 days without being produced before court or charged, and transferred from police to military intelligence custody. The Court held that once an applicant shows a person is in custody and alleges unlawful detention, the burden shifts to the detaining authority to justify the detention. The prolonged detention without production before court or formal charges violated the applicants' constitutional right to personal liberty under Article 23.

Outcome

Writ of habeas corpus issued directing respondents to produce the applicants before court on 18 February 2026

Facts

The first, second and fourth applicants were arrested on 2 December 2025 at Zara Hotel Makindye by police officers. The third applicant was arrested on 4 December 2025 when he went to deliver food to the second applicant. The applicants were initially detained at Kabalagala Police Station where family members were granted access and informed the matter was beyond the station's control. On 30 December 2025, the applicants were transferred from police custody to the Chieftaincy of Military Intelligence (CMI). By the date of the application, the applicants had been held for 29 days without being produced before any court or formally charged with any offence. The third respondent denied having the applicants in custody and stated that all gazetted detention facilities had been checked with no trace of the applicants.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants satisfied the conditions for the grant of an order of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum.

Orders

  • Application granted.
  • A writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum issued to the respondents to produce Edwin Asiimwe, Bonane Ronald, Kassadha Allan and Elvin Bwambale before the High Court of Uganda (Civil Division) on Wednesday 18 February 2026 at 12:00pm.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Habeas Corpus — Burden of Proof — Shift to Detaining Authority
In applications for habeas corpus, once an applicant shows that a person is in custody and alleges that such custody is unlawful, the burden shifts to the detaining authority to show that the detention is justified in law.
Constitutional Law — Habeas Corpus — Conditions for Grant — Reasonable Grounds
For a writ of habeas corpus to issue, it must be proved that the subject person is in the legal or otherwise custody of the State or State agencies. The applicant must show reasonable grounds to believe that the person is being unlawfully detained by stating the place and date of arrest and demonstrating custody by law enforcement agencies.
Human Rights — Personal Liberty — Detention Beyond 48 Hours — Constitutional Violation
Prolonged detention beyond 48 hours without production before a court of law and without formal charges constitutes a violation of the constitutional right to personal liberty under Article 23(4)(b) of the Constitution, which mandates that a person arrested or detained shall be brought to court as soon as possible but in any case not later than 48 hours from the time of arrest.
Constitutional Law — Habeas Corpus — Non-Derogable Right — Article 44
The right to habeas corpus is one of the few rights that cannot be limited under the Constitution. Article 44 provides that notwithstanding anything in the Constitution, there shall be no derogation from the right to an order of habeas corpus.
Constitutional Law — Habeas Corpus — Nature and Purpose — Emergency Remedy
Habeas corpus is an emergency remedy issued in grave situations of an urgent nature. The essence of a writ of habeas corpus is to secure the production of a person before a court of law by the State so as to facilitate a judicial inquiry into the reasons for their incarceration and to examine whether the arrest, imprisonment or detention is lawful.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (2)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Edwin Asiimwe and Others v Attorney General and Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 6 of 2026) [2026] UGHCCD 34 (12 February 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.