Wakilii

Glare Michael and Another v Attorney General [2025] UGHRC 13

Tribunal · 2025 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Human rights complaint alleging torture by UPDF soldiers during a gun recovery operation
Decision
First complainant's complaint allowed with damages awarded; second complainant's complaint dismissed

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 UPDF soldiers tortured the first complainant during a gun recovery operation, violating his constitutional right to freedom from torture. The respondent was held vicariously liable. The first complainant was awarded UGX 15,000,000 in general damages. The second complainant's claim was dismissed for lack of credible evidence, as his testimony contained exaggerations and inconsistencies that undermined his credibility.

Outcome

First complainant's complaint allowed with damages awarded; second complainant's complaint dismissed

Facts

On 21 September 2009, UPDF soldiers and Uganda Police conducted a joint operation to recover illegal guns in Dokolo District. The complainants, peasant farmers, were accused of illegal gun possession. UPDF soldiers searched their homes but found no guns. During the search, the first complainant (Olake Michael) was handcuffed, severely beaten with sticks all over his body, and hit on the head with a gun butt causing a wound. He was detained at Agwata Police Post where soldiers continued to kick him. The second complainant (Abak Morris) also alleged torture but his testimony contained significant inconsistencies and exaggerations. Both complainants were released without charge. The first complainant's account was corroborated by an eyewitness (the LC.I Chairman) who saw the beating and injuries. The respondent's witnesses denied any torture occurred.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondent's agents violated the complainants' right to protection from torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.
  2. Whether the complainants are entitled to any remedy.

Orders

  • The 2nd complainant, Abak Morris' complaint is dismissed.
  • The 1st complainant, Olake Michael's complaint is allowed.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay Olake Michael UGX 15,000,000 as general damages for violation of his right to protection from torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.
  • The UGX 15,000,000 will attract interest at 10% per annum from the date hereof until payment in full.

Rules and key headnotes

Torture — Definition and Constitutional Prohibition
Torture is defined as an act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for purposes such as obtaining information or a confession, punishing, intimidating or coercing, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or any other person acting in an official capacity. Torture is absolutely prohibited under Article 24 of the Constitution of Uganda, and no circumstances whatsoever can make torture acceptable under Article 44(a).
Proof of Torture — Medical Evidence Not Mandatory
Medical evidence is not a legal requirement to prove torture. Other evidence, such as credible testimonies of eyewitnesses, can suffice to establish that torture occurred.
Vicarious Liability — State Liability for Acts of Security Forces
The state is vicariously liable for acts of torture committed by UPDF soldiers acting in the course of their employment as servants of the state during official operations.
Credibility Assessment — Exaggerations and Inconsistencies
Where a complainant's testimony contains significant exaggerations, material inconsistencies with earlier statements, and allegations unsupported by corroborating witnesses who were present, the tribunal may reject the testimony as lacking credibility and dismiss the claim.
Damages for Torture — Assessment of Quantum
In assessing damages for torture, the tribunal will consider the extreme physical and mental pain suffered, the nature and severity of injuries inflicted, the oppressive and dehumanizing nature of the conduct, and the absolute nature of the right to freedom from torture under the Constitution.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (1)

  • Paul Wanyoto v Sgt. Qumo and Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 91/2021)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Glare Michael and Another v Attorney General 2025 UGHRC 13 (17 February 2025)
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.