Wakilii

Kabanda v Attorney General [2023] UGHRC 17

Tribunal · 2023 Complaint Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Human rights complaint alleging violation of right to freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
Decision
Complaint allowed; respondent ordered to pay UGX 15,000,000 as general damages with interest at court rate 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

Held that the shooting of the complainant by state agents during riot dispersal was unintentional and did not constitute torture under Article 24 of the Constitution, as it lacked the requisite intent to obtain information, punish, or intimidate. However, the random firing of bullets by state agents violated the complainant's right to security of the person under Article 9 of the ICCPR. The respondent was held vicariously liable and ordered to pay UGX 15,000,000 as general damages.

Outcome

Complaint allowed; respondent ordered to pay UGX 15,000,000 as general damages with interest at court rate from date of decision

Facts

On 10 September 2009, during riots in Kampala related to the blocking of the Kabaka from travelling to Kayunga, the complainant Kabanda Isaac was at Bwaise. At approximately 5:00 pm, a military armoured vehicle (Mamba) arrived at Sir Apollo Kaggwa Road and began firing bullets randomly to disperse rioters. The complainant was shot in the left arm and ribs. Another person, Mujuko, was shot in the head and fell on the complainant. The complainant was taken to Mulago Hospital where he was admitted for four months. He underwent four surgeries to treat an infected fracture and remove a bullet lodged in his abdominal wall. Medical evidence established a 36% temporary disability rating. The complainant alleged violation of his right to freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

Issues

  1. Whether the Complainant's right to protection from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment was violated by the respondent's agents.
  2. Whether the respondent is liable.
  3. Whether there is any remedy available to the Complainant.

Orders

  • The complaint is allowed.
  • The Respondent is ordered to pay the Complainant a sum of UGX 15,000,000 (Fifteen Million Shillings Only) as general damages for the violation of his right to security of the person.
  • The general damages shall attract interest at court rate from the date of this decision till payment in full.
  • Each party shall bear their own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Human Rights — Torture — Definition and Elements — Intent Requirement
For an act to constitute torture under Article 24 of the Constitution, it must involve the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering with the purpose of obtaining information or a confession, punishing, or intimidating the victim. Unintentional harm, even if severe, does not meet the definition of torture.
Human Rights — Right to Security of Person — State Duty to Protect
The right to personal security under Article 9 of the ICCPR obliges state parties to take appropriate measures to protect individuals from foreseeable threats to life or bodily integrity. Security officers violate this right when they unjustifiably inflict bodily injury, including through random firing of bullets during riot dispersal without regard for human life.
Tort Law — Vicarious Liability — State Liability for Acts of Agents
Once the actions or omissions of a state agent have been proved, the state is vicariously liable even if those actions were carried out contrary to orders or instructions, and even if the agent acted deliberately, wantonly, criminally, negligently, or contrary to specific instructions.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Assessment Principles — Restitutio in Integrum
The principle governing assessment of damages is that the injured party should be awarded such a sum of money as will put that party in the same position as the party would have been in if the party had not sustained the injuries. The court will take into account the consequences of the injuries sustained, including loss of gainful employment, physical and psychological pain, and degree of disability.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (6)

  • Bindemeseze John v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. 69 of 2003)
  • Muwonge v Attorney General [1967] EA 17
  • Robert Coussens v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1999)
  • Businge David v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. 13 of 2006)
  • Okello James v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 574 of 2003)
  • Anthony Leehong Vs. Jamaica Human Rights Committee Communication No 613/1995

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kabanda v Attorney General 2023 UGHRC 17 (18 April 2023)
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.