Wakilii

Joy Kairu Kitebete and Another and Another v Attorney General [2018] UGHRC 62

Tribunal · 2018 Complaint Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Human rights complaint before the Uganda Human Rights Commission Tribunal alleging torture and property rights violations
Decision
Complaint allowed; complainants awarded general damages totalling UGX 31,000,000 with interest at 10% per annum from date of decision

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 the complainants' right to freedom from torture under Article 24 of the Constitution was violated when they were beaten and shot by Captain James Tushabe and armed uniformed soldiers on 10 January 2007 in order to compel them to vacate their land. The Attorney General was found vicariously liable for the acts of Captain Tushabe and his men, as the Respondent adduced no evidence that the soldiers were acting on a frolic of their own. The Tribunal awarded general damages totalling UGX 31,000,000 to the three complainants.

Outcome

Complaint allowed; complainants awarded general damages totalling UGX 31,000,000 with interest at 10% per annum from date of decision

Facts

On 10 January 2007 between 7:00 pm and 8:00 pm, the three complainants were at their home in Kyamulangwa Village, Maddu Parish, Mpigi District when they were attacked by Captain James Tushabe accompanied by armed uniformed soldiers and two civilians. The 1st and 3rd complainants were beaten with batons and sticks all over their bodies. The 2nd complainant was shot in the right shoulder and left arm as he tried to flee. The 1st and 3rd complainants sought treatment at Kitovu Hospital and Maddu Medical Centre respectively. Medical evidence confirmed the 1st complainant suffered fractures to the 4th and 5th metacarpal bones and swelling on the left arm. The 2nd complainant sustained bullet wounds to the shoulder and wrist with nerve damage, resulting in permanent disability estimated at 15%. The 3rd complainant had bruises on the right arm, wounds on both buttocks, and torture marks on his fingers. The complainants testified that the attack was intended to force them to vacate their land, with which they had a dispute with Captain Tushabe.

Issues

  1. Whether the Complainants' right to freedom from torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment was violated?
  2. Whether the Respondent is vicariously liable?
  3. Whether there is any remedy available to the Complainants?

Orders

  • Complaint allowed.
  • Respondent ordered to pay 1st Complainant Joy Kairu Kitebete UGX 9,000,000 as general damages for violation of right to freedom from torture.
  • Respondent ordered to pay 2nd Complainant Mulokole Fred UGX 13,000,000 as general damages for violation of right to freedom from torture.
  • Respondent ordered to pay 3rd Complainant Ngangale Steven UGX 9,000,000 as general damages for violation of right to freedom from torture.
  • Total sum of UGX 31,000,000 to attract interest at 10% per annum from date of decision until payment in full.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Human Rights — Torture — Constitutional Protection — Article 24 of the Constitution
Article 24 of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 protects the right to freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, providing that no person shall be subjected to any form of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Human Rights — Torture — Elements — Intentional Infliction for a Purpose
Torture is an act or omission intentionally inflicted on a person for a purpose which causes severe and cruel physical or mental suffering. In determining whether acts constitute torture, the Tribunal considers the nature of the act, the severity of physical or mental harm suffered, and the purpose of the actor.
Human Rights — Torture — Coercive Purpose — Acts to Compel Vacation of Land
Where persons are subjected to physical beatings and shootings in order to compel them to vacate their land, such acts constitute torture as they are intentionally inflicted for a coercive purpose and cause severe physical suffering.
Administrative Law — Vicarious Liability — State Liability for Acts of Soldiers
The Attorney General is vicariously liable for acts of torture committed by UPDF soldiers where the soldiers were in uniform and armed at the time of the acts, and the Respondent adduces no evidence that the soldiers were acting on a frolic of their own outside the course of employment.
Administrative Law — Vicarious Liability — Burden of Proof — Frolic of Own Defence
It is not the duty of complainants to know whether at the material time a state agent was acting in the ordinary course of employment, as this information is especially within the knowledge of the Respondent. Where the Respondent pleads that an agent was on a frolic of his own, the Respondent bears the burden of adducing evidence in rebuttal.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Human Rights Violations — Assessment Factors
In assessing general damages for violation of the right to freedom from torture, the Tribunal considers the severity of injuries sustained, the level of permanent disability, and the medical evidence adduced. Awards are made as compensation for the violation of constitutional rights.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (15)

  • John Patrick Besingiza and Another v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. MBR/009 of 2007)
  • Hakizimana Francis v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. CTR/10 of 2009)
  • Bagume John v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. JJA/10 of 2007)
  • Okla John and Emuge Joseph v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. SRT/208 of 2006)
  • Zirimu Johnson v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. CTR/344 of 2004)
  • Badru Kule v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. 219 of 2003)
  • Akot Catherine vs Attorney General HOGS 2/2017
  • Attorney General v Ssengomwani Ssemanda Dick (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 65 of 2004)
  • Sekikubo Kato v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. KLA/292 of 2004)
  • Senyonga Joseph v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. 570 of 2001)
  • Ssentongo Joseph v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. MSk/31 of 2011)
  • Apollo Amon and Attorney General UHRC/2006/
  • Paul Byekwaso and Attorney General GAGA 10/2002
  • Enyimu Daniel v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. SRT/212 of 2007)
  • Fred Biryomumaisho v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. 253 of 2003)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Joy Kairu Kitebete and Another and Another v Attorney General 2018 UGHRC 62 (18 June 2018)
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.