Jaswa Samuel v Attorney General [2017] UGHRC 75
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 Tribunal held that police officers attached to Paidha Police Station violated the complainant's right to freedom from cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment when they shot him in the thigh while dispersing a crowd. The Attorney General was found vicariously liable for the acts of its agents. The Tribunal awarded UGX 17,000,000 in general damages and UGX 8,000,000 in exemplary damages, with interest at 10% per annum from the date of decision.
Outcome
Complaint allowed; complainant awarded general and exemplary damages totalling UGX 25,000,000 with interest at 10% per annum from date of decision until payment in full
Facts
On 7 December 2012, the complainant Jaswa Samuel was at his workplace in Paidha Town when a riot erupted following the arrest of a murder suspect. He locked his shop and headed home, bypassing two armed police officers and one soldier. Approximately ten metres after passing them, he heard a gunshot and found himself on the ground, shot in the right thigh from behind. He was taken to Nyapea Hospital and later transferred to Nebbi Hospital where he spent three months. Medical examination revealed a gunshot wound on his mid-right leg with a compound fracture, classified as grievous bodily harm. The shooting occurred at short range of less than 10 metres. The complainant's body was weakened by the injury and he could no longer perform heavy manual work to support his family.
Issues
- Whether the Complainant's right to freedom from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment was violated.
- Whether the Respondent is liable.
- Whether there is any remedy available to the Complainant.
Orders
- The Complaint is allowed.
- The Respondent is ordered to pay the Complainant UGX 17,000,000 as general damages for the violation of his right to freedom from cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.
- The Respondent is ordered to pay the Complainant UGX 8,000,000 as exemplary damages for the violation of his right to freedom from cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.
- The total sum of UGX 25,000,000 shall attract interest at 10% per annum from the date of this decision till payment in full.
- Either party shall bear its own costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (10)
- Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 24
- Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 44
- Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 53(2)
- Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 221
- Evidence Act s.101
- Evidence Act s.102
- International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 7
- African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights Article 4
- African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights Article 5
- Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 Article 8
Cases cited (12)
- Arakit Mary Margaret v Attorney General (HCCS No. 699 of 2003)
- MTN (U) Limited v Henry Kabaale (HCCS No. 504 of 2002)
- Kiggundu John Baptist v Ndejje University (HCCS No. 109 of 2015)
- Akugizibwe Amon v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. FPT/47 of 2006)
- Okello Tom Ibrahim v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. G/88/2005)
- Apollo Amon v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. 2006)
- Kasekya Kasaija Sylvan v Attorney General (HCCS No. 1147 of 1998)
- Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum v Zimbabwe AfrCommHPR, Communication No. 245/2002
- Okello James v Attorney General (HCCS No. 574 of 2003)
- Dr. Nganwa William and Another v Attorney General (HCCS No. 640 of 2005)
- Matsiko Silagi Bernard and Mbagukire Peter v Attorney General (HCCS No. 383 of 2002)
- Nabukenya Margaret v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. JJA/103/2004)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.