Wakilii

Francis Tumwekwasize & 2 Ors v Attorney General (HCT-00-CV-MC-0036-2009)

High Court · [2010] UGHC 36 · 2010 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by Notice of Motion under Article 50 of the Constitution for enforcement of fundamental rights and freedoms
Decision
Application partly allowed; damages and costs awarded to two of three applicants; third applicant's claim struck out

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 journalists assaulted by Special Police Constables at Namboole Stadium while covering a news story had their constitutional rights to freedom of the press and freedom from inhuman and degrading treatment violated. The court awarded UGX 15,000,000 each to the two applicants whose presence and injuries were proved. The third applicant's claim was struck out for lack of evidence. No statutory notice under the Civil Procedure and Limitation Act is required in human rights enforcement applications under Article 50 of the Constitution.

Outcome

Application partly allowed; damages and costs awarded to two of three applicants; third applicant's claim struck out

Facts

On 27 August 2008, three journalists from WBS TV went to Namboole Stadium to cover a story about unsanitary conditions caused by Special Police Constables residing there. Upon arrival at approximately 2:00 p.m., wearing WBS labels and in a clearly marked WBS van, they were accosted by several Special Police Constables who prevented them from entering the stadium offices. The journalists retreated to their van, but the SPCs closed the gate, forced open the van, pulled them out, beat them with batons, kicks, sticks and metals, set dogs on them, and confiscated their cameras. They were later released and their cameras returned on the order of Senior Superintendent Laban Muhabwe. The first and second applicants received medical treatment at Nsambya Hospital the same day. Medical treatment notes documented their injuries. The respondent denied the assault and claimed no Special Police Constables were at the stadium, though Mr Muhabwe's affidavit confirmed pandemonium occurred and cameras were confiscated.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants were assaulted, battered and molested by the respondent's agents
  2. Whether the acts complained of amounted to a breach of the applicants' freedom of the Press
  3. Whether the acts complained of amounted to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment
  4. What remedies should be awarded

Orders

  • The third applicant's (Ibrahim Sadik) claim is struck out for lack of evidence.
  • The first and second applicants (Francis Tumwekwasize and Timothy Sibasi) are each awarded UGX 15,000,000 as damages.
  • Each award shall attract interest of 20% per annum from the date of ruling until payment in full.
  • The first and second applicants are awarded the costs of the application.
  • The respondent's preliminary objection based on Rule 4 of SI 2008 No.55 is disallowed.

Rules and key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Fundamental Rights Enforcement — Statutory Notice Requirement — Article 50 Applications
No statutory notice under section 2 of the Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act is required when bringing an application for enforcement of fundamental rights and freedoms under Article 50 of the Constitution, as requiring such notice would result in the absurdity of condoning the violation of rights and denying the applicant a remedy.
Evidence — Affidavit Evidence — Competence to Swear on Behalf of Others
A person is competent to swear an affidavit on matters or facts he knows about or on information he receives and believes, and under Article 50(2) of the Constitution any person or organisation may bring an action against the violation of another person's or group's human rights, but there must be evidence of existence of the facts alleged.
Human Rights — Freedom of the Press — Access to Information — Denial of Access to Journalists
The right to freedom of the press under Article 29(1)(a) of the Constitution includes the right to access information, and denial of access to journalists seeking to cover a newsworthy incident amounts to a breach of press freedom absent evidence that the denial was in the interest of public peace and order or that access was restricted by lawful requirement of which the journalists were aware.
Human Rights — Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment — Assault of Journalists by Police
The assault and molestation of journalists in dehumanising circumstances by Special Police Constables, absent any showing that such treatment was in the public interest, constitutes cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 24 of the Constitution.
Administrative Law — State Liability — Special Police Constables as Agents of the State
Special Police Constables are agents of the Attorney General, and the state is liable for their tortious acts committed in the course of their duties.
Evidence — Medical Evidence — Expert Opinion Based on Records Only
Where a doctor gives expert opinion evidence more than a year after an incident by merely perusing treatment notes without examining the subjects himself, while contemporaneous medical evidence exists from doctors who examined and treated the subjects on the day of the incident, the court will prefer the evidence of the treating doctors.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (4)

  • Dr J W Rwanyarare and 2 Others v Attorney General (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 85 of 1993)
  • Greenwatch v Uganda Wildlife Authority and Another (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 15 of 2004)
  • Victor Mukasa and Another v Attorney General (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 24 of 2006)
  • Ronald Reagan Okumu and Others v Attorney General (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 63 of 2002)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Francis Tumwekwasize & 2 Ors v Attorney General (HCT-00-CV-MC-0036-2009) [2010] UGHC 36 (22 March 2010)
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.