Wakilii

Gahwera Sarah v Attorney General [2018] UGHRC 47

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 right to life
Decision
Complaint allowed; compensation awarded to the estate of the deceased

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 a UPDF soldier violated Baguma Solomon's right to life under Article 22(1) of the Constitution when he shot and killed the unarmed 23-year-old who was fleeing from police officers. The soldier applied excessive, unnecessary and unreasonable force. The Attorney General was held vicariously liable for the acts of the UPDF officer carried out in the course of employment. The estate of the deceased was awarded UGX 35,000,000 as compensation.

Outcome

Complaint allowed; compensation awarded to the estate of the deceased

Facts

On 25 September 2008 at around 7:00 p.m., Baguma Solomon, aged 23, was walking with a friend Florence Kwagala in Zzana when three men in plain clothes pulled his shirt. Solomon removed the shirt and ran away while the men chased him, shouting that he was a thief. As Solomon ran into a courtyard, a UPDF soldier (Arinaitwe Benson) who was guarding Brigadier Kashaka emerged from a fenced home, opened the gate, and shot Solomon. Solomon died at the scene from gunshot wounds. The complainant, Gahwera Sarah (Solomon's mother), was at church when her sons informed her of the shooting. She rushed to the scene and found Solomon dead. She reported the matter to Lubowa Police Station, where a murder case was opened. The case was transferred to Kibuye Police Station and then to Makindye Court, but no prosecution followed. The complainant was advised to report to the Uganda Human Rights Commission. A forensic postmortem confirmed death from hemorrhagic shock and severe bleeding caused by gunshot wounds.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondent's agent violated Baguma Solomon's right to life.
  2. Whether the Respondent (Attorney General) is liable.
  3. Whether the Complainant is entitled to a remedy.

Orders

  • The complaint is allowed.
  • The Respondent (Attorney General) is ordered to pay to the estate of the late Baguma Solomon a sum of UGX 35,000,000 as compensation for the violation of Baguma Solomon's right to life.
  • The said amount of UGX 35,000,000 shall carry interest at a rate of 10% per annum from the date of this decision until payment in full.
  • Each party shall bear their own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Right to Life — Use of Deadly Force — Fleeing Unarmed Suspect
A law enforcement or security officer may not use deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect unless the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Shooting an unarmed suspect who is fleeing from police constitutes excessive, unnecessary and unreasonable force and violates the right to life under Article 22(1) of the Constitution.
Right to Life — UPDF Powers — Aid to Civil Authority
Although the UPDF may offer aid to civil authority under sections 42 to 45 of the Uganda Peoples' Defence Forces Act 2005 and exercise powers of a police officer to prevent loss of life or serious damage to property, a UPDF officer who shoots an unarmed fleeing suspect acts irrationally and unnecessarily where the officer had the option of apprehending the suspect by confining his body, shooting in the air as a warning, or shooting to disable rather than kill.
Vicarious Liability — Acts in Course of Employment
The Attorney General is vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of a UPDF officer carried out in the course of employment, even if the acts were deliberate, wrongful, negligent or criminal, and even if the officer was acting for his own benefit, provided the acts were done in the manner of carrying out what the officer was employed to carry out.
Remedies — Compensation for Violation of Right to Life
Where the Uganda Human Rights Commission Tribunal is satisfied that there has been a violation of the right to life, it may order payment of compensation under Articles 52 and 53(2)(b) and (c) of the Constitution. The quantum of compensation takes into account that the right to life is the most important right without which all other rights cannot be enjoyed, and that the sanctity of life commands maximum protection.
Direct Evidence — Oral Evidence Must Be Direct
Under section 59 of the Evidence Act Cap 6, oral evidence must in all cases be direct, meaning that if it refers to a fact which could be seen, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he or she saw what happened; and if it refers to a fact which could be heard, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he or she heard it as it happened.

Legislation cited (15)

Cases cited (5)

  • Katantazi Wilson v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. 57 of 2004)
  • Muwonge v Attorney General [1967] 1 EA 17
  • Tennessee v Garner 471 US 1 (1985)
  • Graham v Connor 490 US 386 (1989)
  • Jones v Tower Boots Co Ltd [1997] ALLER 40 B

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Gahwera Sarah v Attorney General 2018 UGHRC 47 (14 June 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.