Wakilii

In the matter of An Application for enforcement of human rights by Kalali (Misc Cause 88 of 2022)

High Court · [2024] UGHCCD 38 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Public interest application for enforcement of fundamental rights under the Judicature (Fundamental Rights and Freedoms) Enforcement Procedure Rules
Decision
Application dismissed with no orders as to costs

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 Uganda Police Force has an obligation to progressively realise the right to decent shelter for junior police officers, but that this right is subject to available resources and must be pursued through reasonable measures. The court found insufficient evidence to support the applicant's claim that the respondent had unreasonably failed to provide adequate housing, and held that the steps taken by the Police Force—including constructing housing units, adopting external financing schemes, and promoting mortgage options—were reasonable interventions under the constitutional and international human rights framework. The application was dismissed.

Outcome

Application dismissed with no orders as to costs

Facts

Steven Kalali, a public interest lawyer, filed an application seeking enforcement of junior police officers' right to decent housing under the Constitution. He argued that police officers were housed in dilapidated, overcrowded structures with poor sanitation, violating their rights to dignity, privacy, family life, and a clean environment. Eliphaz Isabirye, a police officer with eight years' service, testified to squalid conditions at Nsambya police barracks including leaking roofs, shared accommodation, broken plumbing, and electricity shortages. The Attorney General responded through AIGP Edyegu Richard, acknowledging housing shortages (7,472 units for a projected force of 70,000) but citing insufficient budgets. The respondent pointed to efforts including external financing through supplier credit, disposal of prime land, promotion of mortgage schemes, and ongoing construction projects in various districts. The applicant sought orders directing the government to provide proper housing, stop further violations, and file periodic reports to the court.

Issues

  1. Whether the Uganda Police Force has a duty to provide decent shelter to serving police officers of and below the rank of Assistant Inspector of Police.
  2. Whether this obligation has been violated.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Economic and Social Rights — Progressive Realisation — Available Resources Doctrine
Economic and social rights, including the right to decent housing, are subject to progressive realisation within the limits of available resources, and impose obligations on the state to take reasonable legislative and other measures to achieve their realisation over time rather than to provide such rights immediately on demand.
National Objectives and Directive Principles — State Welfare Promises — Legal Status
National Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy represent value-based systems and aspirational promises rather than immediately enforceable rights, forming part of a welfare state framework that requires all laws and policies to align with constitutional aspirations but does not entitle citizens to demand immediate fulfilment on a plate.
Right to Adequate Housing — Expansion Through Interdependent Rights
Although the Constitution does not expressly guarantee a right to adequate housing in the Bill of Rights, this right may be expanded and read into other guaranteed rights including the right to life, dignity, privacy, and a clean and healthy environment, on the principle that human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent, and interrelated, and that rendering a person homeless is both inhuman and degrading.
Socio-Economic Rights — Minimum Core Content — Obligations of the State
The minimum core content of the right to adequate shelter represents the floor beneath which state conduct must not drop, and requires the state to secure minimum existential conditions for dignified living through respecting, protecting, promoting, and fulfilling housing rights, with the reasonableness of state measures assessed in light of the degree and extent of denial of rights, the urgency of needs, and whether vulnerable groups have been excluded.
Reasonableness Review — Socio-Economic Rights — Policy Choices
In reviewing whether the state has fulfilled its obligations concerning socio-economic rights, courts apply a reasonableness standard that gives leeway to political branches to make necessary policy choices, requiring measures to be comprehensive, coherent, inclusive, balanced, flexible, transparent, properly conceived and implemented, make provision for those in desperate need, not exclude significant segments of society, clearly allocate responsibilities and resources, be context-sensitive, allow for meaningful engagement, and be continuously reviewed.
Human Rights Enforcement — Burden of Proof — Evidentiary Requirements
A litigant seeking declarations that the state has violated socio-economic rights must present verifiable evidence demonstrating that the state has unreasonably failed to meet its obligations, including evidence of fiscal responsibility, priority-setting, and misappropriation of allocated resources; scanty testimony and insufficient supporting documentation will not meet the evidentiary burden required for the court to grant declarations of rights violations.
Police Officers' Rights — Housing Entitlement — Standing Orders
While Uganda Police Standing Orders provide that junior ranking police officers may reside in police barracks, the use of permissive language indicates that such provision is not an absolute entitlement or right but rather a token facility subject to available resources and policy frameworks, and does not create a distinct or enhanced housing right separate from that enjoyed by ordinary citizens under the Constitution.

Legislation cited (15)

Cases cited (14)

  • Energo Projekt v Kasirye Gwanga (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 559 of 2009)
  • Samwiri Musa v Rose Achen (1978) HCB 297
  • Minister of Health and Others v Treatment Action Campaign and Others (No. 2) (CCT8/02) [2002] ZACC 15; 2002 (5) SA 721 (CC); 2002 (10) BCLR 1033 (CC) (5 July 2002)
  • Kafero and Another v Electoral Commission and Another (Constitutional Petition No. 22 of 2006)
  • Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others v Grootboom and Others (CCT11/00) [2000] ZACC 19; 2001 (1) SA 46; 2000 (11) BCLR 1169 (4 October 2000)
  • Occupiers of 51 Olivia Road, Berea Township and 197 Main Street, Johannesburg v City of Johannesburg and Others [2008] ZACC 1; 2008 (5) BCLR 475 (CC); 2008 (3) SA 208 (CC)
  • Occupiers of 51 Olivia Road and Others v City of Johannesburg and Others [2008] 5 BCLR 475 (CC)
  • Thubelisha Homes and Others v Various Occupants and Others (CCT 22/08) ZACC 16; 2009 (9) BCLR 847
  • Attorney General v Abuki (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1998)
  • Social and Economic Action Centre and the Centre for Economic and Social Rights v Nigeria (SERAC) Communication 155/96
  • Rajesh Kumar v Mahmood Somani (High Court Commercial Division Misc. Cause No. 62 of 2018)
  • President of the Republic of South Africa and Another v Modderklip Boerdery (Pty) Ltd and Others [2005] 8 BCLR 786 (CC)
  • Port Elizabeth Municipality v Various Occupiers [2004] 12 BCLR 1268 (CC)
  • Residents of Joe Slovo Community, Western Cape v Thubelisha Homes and Others [2009] 9 BCLR 847 (CC)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

In the matter of An Application for enforcement of human rights by Kalali (Misc Cause 88 of 2022) [2024] UGHCCD 38 (1 March 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.