Wakilii

Hajji Nsamba Abubakali v Uganda and Others [2026] UGHCCD 167

High Court · 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 seeking production of applicant allegedly held in unlawful detention
Decision
Writ of habeas corpus granted; respondents ordered to produce the applicant before court on 18 May 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 the applicant was last seen in the custody of state security agencies, the respondents failed to provide cogent evidence of lawful release on police bond, and the applicant was not produced before court within the constitutionally prescribed 48 hours. The burden lies on the respondents to account for a person last seen in their custody, and a mere denial without verifiable evidence of release is insufficient.

Outcome

Writ of habeas corpus granted; respondents ordered to produce the applicant before court on 18 May 2026

Facts

The applicant was allegedly arrested at court premises in Kenya following an unsuccessful extradition attempt by the Government of Uganda. On 19 October 2023, the applicant telephoned his father and wife stating he was detained at Jinja Road Police Station. When family members attended the station on 20 October 2023, they were informed the applicant had been transferred to the Directorate Crime Intelligence. The respondents contended the applicant was arrested at Malaba on 19 October 2023, detained at Jinja Road Police Station, transferred to Counter Terrorism Headquarters Naguru on 20 October 2023, released on police bond, and required to report on 27 October 2023 but absconded. The applicant's whereabouts remained unknown at the time of the application and he was never produced before any court.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant has established grounds for granting the order of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum.

Orders

  • A writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is issued directing the respondents to produce the applicant Hajji Nsamba Abubakali before the High Court of Uganda at Kampala (Civil Division) on Monday, 18 May 2026 at 12:00pm.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Right to Personal Liberty — Habeas Corpus — Burden of Proof
Where a person is last seen in the custody of state agencies and the respondents deny current custody, the burden lies heavily on the respondents to account for that person and to provide cogent evidence of lawful release; a mere denial of custody without verifiable evidence is insufficient to establish that the person regained liberty.
Human Rights — Personal Liberty — Habeas Corpus — Elements of Successful Application
For a successful habeas corpus application, the applicant must establish two elements: (1) a deprivation of liberty and (2) that the deprivation is unlawful. The writ exists to release a person from unlawful deprivation of liberty.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Detention — Constitutional Time Limits — 48-Hour Rule
Where there is no evidence that an applicant was legally detained pursuant to a court order or arraigned before a competent court within the constitutionally prescribed 48 hours, and the applicant's whereabouts remain unknown, there is reasonable ground for complaint that the continued deprivation of liberty is illegal.
Administrative Law — Habeas Corpus — Custody Requirement — State Agencies
The right to an order of habeas corpus can only be enforced when it is proved that a victim is in the legal or otherwise custody of the State or State agencies. Where custody is not firmly established, the matter falls under another realm such as further police investigations or inquest proceedings.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (7)

  • Col. (Rtd) Dr. Kizza Besigye v Attorney General (Habeas Corpus Application No. 7 of 2005)
  • Baldah Abdu Muhammed v Officer in Charge Kigo Prison and Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 022 of 2013)
  • Uganda v Commissioner of Prisons Ex Parte Matovu [1966] EA 514
  • Law Society of Kenya & 3 others v Attorney General & 2 others; Independent Policing Oversight Authority (Interested Party) [2023] KEHC 26888 (KLR)
  • Jovia Karuhanga v Inspector General of Police and Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 86 of 2013)
  • Shakai & 2 others v Attorney General & 2 others (Petition 295 of 2012) [2025] KEHC 17015 (KLR) (Constitutional and Human Rights)
  • Kiwanuka and Others v Director General of Internal Security Organisation and Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 9 of 2021)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Hajji Nsamba Abubakali v Uganda and Others 2026 UGHCCD 167 (13 May 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.