Habimana Luke Ssentale v Matovu Patrick and 2 Others [2023] UGHRC 29
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 Uganda Human Rights Commission dismissed a complaint alleging torture during arrest. The Tribunal found grave inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony regarding the date of the alleged incident (June versus December 2008) and the nature and extent of injuries suffered. The complainant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that his right to freedom from torture was violated, despite witness testimony confirming an arrest and some physical force.
Outcome
Complaint dismissed for failure to prove violation on balance of probabilities
Facts
On 2 June 2008 (or 10 December 2008 per conflicting testimony), the complainant was arrested from his home in Bugomola village on allegations of theft of a pig belonging to the 3rd respondent. The 2nd and 3rd respondents arrested him, tied his hands with ropes, and took him to the 3rd respondent's home. The complainant alleged he was severely beaten, slapped on the ears, kicked, and pushed onto stony ground, losing consciousness. Two witnesses testified that the complainant was tied, kicked, beaten with sticks and slapped during arrest. Medical notes from Kiboga General Hospital (uncertified and undated) indicated treatment for assault injuries. The complainant sought compensation for violation of his right to freedom from torture.
Issues
- Whether the Complainant's right to freedom from any form of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment was violated.
- Whether the Respondents are liable.
- What remedies are available to the parties?
Orders
- The complaint is dismissed.
- Each party shall bear their own costs.
- Any party dissatisfied with this decision may appeal to the High Court of Uganda within 30 days from the date hereof.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (4)
Cases cited (4)
- Settanda George Kwemara v Kankindi Yudesi and 6 Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 19 of 2009)
- Paul Wanyoto Mugoya v Sgt Oumo Joshua and Attorney General (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 91 of 2021)
- Constancio Kabasongola v Evengirine Kabaruli (High Court Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2015)
- Uganda v Abdallah Nassur [1982] HCB
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.