Wakilii

Ikonero and Another v Wagagai Minining Limited and 3 Others (Misc Cause 30 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 984 · 2024 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance application for declarations and compensation for human rights violations including torture and inhuman treatment
Decision
Application partly allowed; Applicants awarded general damages of UGX 50 million each and specific medical expenses; Respondents ordered to issue public apology within 30 days

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

Held that the Applicants were subjected to torture by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents in association with the 4th Respondent. The court found that the Applicants, who were employees of the 1st Respondent, were beaten with blunt objects, electro-shocked with an electric baton, kicked and punched, causing grievous harm. Medical evidence including Police Form 3 and CT-scan results corroborated the Applicants' assertions. The court awarded each Applicant UGX 50 million in general damages and ordered the Respondents to issue a public apology.

Outcome

Application partly allowed; Applicants awarded general damages of UGX 50 million each and specific medical expenses; Respondents ordered to issue public apology within 30 days

Facts

The Applicants were employees of the 1st Respondent, Wagagai Mining Limited. On 28 August 2023, while on the 1st Respondent's premises, the 3rd Respondent questioned them about their previous day's record and demanded they hand over identity cards and forfeit August salaries. When the 1st Applicant refused, the 3rd Respondent called security, including the 2nd and 4th Respondents. The 2nd Respondent electro-shocked the 1st Applicant with an electric baton, causing him to fall. The 2nd and 3rd Respondents then kicked and beat him until he lost consciousness. The 2nd Applicant was also slapped and kicked in the ribs. The 1st Applicant was taken to Nebobola hospital and later to Busia Government Hospital, then admitted to Iganga District Hospital for three days. Medical examinations documented swellings, scratches, brain concussion and injuries classified as grievous harm on the 1st Applicant and mere harm on the 2nd Applicant. The Respondents claimed the incident arose from the Applicants' breach of operational procedures and that the 1st Applicant had assaulted the 2nd Respondent first, but provided no medical evidence to support their version.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicants were subjected to torture, cruel, or inhuman treatment by the Respondents.
  2. Whether the Applicants are entitled to the orders sought for.

Orders

  • A declaration that the brutality, humiliation and embarrassment meted out onto the Applicants amounted to torture, inhuman and degrading treatment under Article 44.
  • A declaration that the conduct and actions of the Respondents violated the Applicants' non-derogable rights and freedoms from torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment guaranteed under Articles 24 and 44(a) of the Constitution.
  • A declaration that the non-derogable rights and freedoms of the Applicants guaranteed under Articles 24, 42 and 44(a) of the Constitution have been violated.
  • Compensation for medical expenses in the sum of UGX 46,000 (UGX 37,000 + UGX 9,000) to the 1st Applicant.
  • General damages of UGX 50,000,000 (Fifty Million Shillings Only) to each Applicant, to be paid by the Respondents jointly and severally.
  • An order that the Respondents issue a public apology to the Applicants to be published in any newspaper of wide circulation within 30 days of this judgment, with guarantees of no repetition of human rights violations.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the Applicants.
  • Claims for unpaid salaries, extra hours and deportation of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Non-derogable Rights — Prohibition of Torture — Definition of Torture
Article 24 and 44(a) of the Constitution protect citizens from torture, cruel punishment, inhuman treatment, degrading treatment and degrading punishment, which are to be read disjunctively. Torture is any act or omission by which severe pain or suffering whether physical or mental is intentionally inflicted on a person for purposes including punishing or intimidating that person.
Human Rights — Torture — Proof of Torture — Standard of Proof
The burden of proving torture lies on the applicant, who must adduce evidence sufficient to show that the injuries sustained are consistent with the assertion of torture. Medical evidence in the form of Police Form 3, CT-scan results and medical reports corroborating physical injuries and their severity is sufficient to discharge this burden.
Human Rights — Liability for Human Rights Violations — Personal Liability of Public Officers
Under Section 10(1) of the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act 2019, a public officer who participates in the violation of a person's rights or freedoms is personally liable. A public officer who looks on while torture is committed is as liable as those who actively commit the acts.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Assessment — Human Rights Violations
General damages for human rights violations are to be assessed by considering the value of the subject matter, the economic inconvenience caused to the victim, and the nature and extent of the breach. Where the subject matter involves non-pecuniary loss such as physical and mental pain, indignity and humiliation, the court exercises its discretion guided by the proven economic inconvenience and the gravity of the violation.
Damages & Quantum — Punitive Damages — Circumstances for Award
Punitive damages are awarded only where there is proof that the defendant's conduct has been calculated to make a profit, or proof of oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional action by a servant of the government, or a statute mandating such an award. Absent these circumstances, punitive damages are not recoverable even in cases of human rights violations.
Human Rights — Remedies — Public Apology and Guarantee of Non-Repetition
Under Section 9(2)(c)(iv) and (vi) of the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act 2019, the court may order a respondent found to have violated human rights to issue a public apology to the victim and provide guarantees of no repetition of human rights violations. Such an order is part of the court's discretion to grant satisfaction to the victim.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Deponent Swearing on Behalf of Another — Authority Required
Where a deponent swears an affidavit on behalf of another party, a written authority from that party must be attached to the affidavit. However, where the deponent is a party to the proceedings and has sufficient knowledge of the matters deposed to, the court may adopt a liberal approach and treat the affidavit as valid for the deponent's own case but defective as regards the other party.

Legislation cited (15)

Cases cited (12)

  • Attorney General v Salvatori Abuki and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1998)
  • Hon. Zaake Francis v Attorney General and Others (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 85 of 2021)
  • Kaheru and Another v Zinorumuri (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 082 of 2017)
  • Onwuvuche Nakibuuka Sarah and Others v Nankoomi Prossy and Others (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 11663 of 2019)
  • Rutuku Francis and Others v Eliphas Ndamagye (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 111 of 2017)
  • Bet City (U) Ltd and Another v Swangz Avenue (U) (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1177 of 2020)
  • Joseph Len vs Photo Focus (U) Ltd (1969) 6 KALR 19
  • Esso Standard (U) Ltd v Semu Amanu Opio (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1993)
  • Dharamshi vs Karsam (1974) E.A 41
  • Okello James v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 574)
  • Desire Mitti v Patrick Ssewagude Musoke and Others (Civil Suit No. 446 of 2016)
  • George Kiggundu v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 386 of 2014)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ikonero and Another v Wagagai Minining Limited and 3 Others (Misc Cause 30 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 984 (12 July 2024)
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.