Wakilii

Izidoro Kizito V Attorney General (MISC CAUSE NO. 102 OF 2019)

High Court · [2019] UGHCCD 182 · 2019 Application Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by notice of motion for constitutional remedies for alleged police shooting and torture
Decision
Application struck out with costs to the respondent

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

Application for constitutional remedies arising from alleged police shooting in 2011 struck out as time barred and abuse of court process. The eight-year delay in filing the application was held excessive and prejudicial to the respondent's ability to defend. The concurrent existence of a complaint before the Uganda Human Rights Commission on the same facts constituted an abuse of court process.

Outcome

Application struck out with costs to the respondent

Facts

On 29 April 2011, the applicant was shot in the head by Uganda Police officers at Nakasero Market, Kampala, resulting in grave injuries and loss of his right eye. He was admitted to Mulago Hospital for one month and four days, undergoing seven operations. The Uganda Police contributed UGX 800,000 towards medical expenses. In 2013, the applicant lodged a complaint with the Uganda Human Rights Commission regarding the same incident. On 15 April 2019, eight years after the incident, the applicant filed this constitutional application seeking declarations that his constitutional rights were breached, that the Attorney General was vicariously liable, and claiming general and punitive damages.

Issues

  1. Whether the application was time barred.
  2. Whether the application constituted an abuse of court process.

Orders

  • Application struck out.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Limitation — Constitutional applications — Delay in filing
An application for constitutional remedies brought eight years after the alleged violation is time barred where the delay prejudices the respondent's ability to make a meaningful defence and line up witnesses.
Limitation — Human rights violations — Applicable limitation period
In the absence of commenced legislation, the five-year limitation period in section 24 of the Uganda Human Rights Commission Act provides guidance for the limitation period applicable to human rights violation complaints.
Abuse of court process — Concurrent proceedings — Multiplicity of actions
Filing a court application for constitutional remedies while a complaint on the same facts and seeking the same remedies remains pending before the Uganda Human Rights Commission constitutes an abuse of court process.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (2)

  • Karuhanga and Another v Attorney General and 2 Others (Misc Cause No. 60 of 2015)
  • R-Benkay Nigeria Ltd Vs Cadbury Nigerian PLC SC 29 of 2006

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Izidoro Kizito V Attorney General (MISC CAUSE NO. 102 OF 2019) [2019] UGHCCD 182 (16 August 2019)
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.