Wakilii

Kabatoreine Victoria Ariau v Uganda and Others [2026] UGHC 170

High Court · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for enforcement of human rights under the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act
Decision
Application dismissed with no order 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

The High Court dismissed an application alleging torture and inhuman treatment during arrest. The court held that where a suspect resists arrest after police have properly introduced themselves and stated the purpose of arrest, police are entitled under section 2(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code Act to use all necessary means to effect the arrest. The court found that the applicant's own evidence showed she resisted arrest, and the resulting soft tissue injury from being dragged by the arms did not meet the high threshold for torture as defined in the Prevention and Prohibition of Torture Act. The application under the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act failed.

Outcome

Application dismissed with no order as to costs

Facts

The applicant was arrested by police officers at her home on 12 December 2024 in connection with a criminal case of assault and occasioning actual bodily harm reported by one Mayanja Abdul. The police officers introduced themselves and informed her she was under arrest. The applicant resisted arrest and attempted to explain she was not home on the date of the alleged assault. A female officer began pulling her by the arms out of the house. The applicant continued to resist. An officer in uniform arrived and ordered the plain-clothed officers to take her away. The applicant was dragged out of her house through mud in the presence of her daughter and other family members. Her daughter recorded the incident on video, which subsequently circulated on social media. The applicant suffered soft tissue injury confirmed by medical examination. She brought an application under the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act alleging torture and inhuman treatment.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondents violated the applicant's human rights under Articles 20, 24 and 44(a) of the Constitution.
  2. Whether the application ought to have been brought by plaint rather than by motion.
  3. Whether the use of force by police officers in effecting an arrest of a resisting suspect constitutes torture or inhuman treatment.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Each party to bear their own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Human Rights — Torture — Definition and Threshold — Distinction from Assault
Torture as defined in the Prevention and Prohibition of Torture Act requires a high threshold involving the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, for purposes such as obtaining information, punishment, or intimidation. The definition does not include pain or suffering arising from, inherent in, or incidental to a lawful sanction. Torture is a serious violation of human rights and cannot be in the same categorisation as an assault.
Criminal Procedure — Arrest — Use of Force — Resisting Arrest
Under section 2(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code Act, where a person forcibly resists arrest or attempts to evade arrest, a police officer may use all means necessary to effect the arrest, provided the force used is reasonable in the particular circumstances and necessary for the apprehension of the offender. Where a suspect resists arrest after police have properly introduced themselves and stated the purpose of arrest, the use of necessary force to effect the arrest does not constitute torture or inhuman treatment.
Human Rights Enforcement — Procedure — Application by Motion versus Plaint
Under section 6(5) of the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act, no suit instituted under the Act shall be rejected or dismissed merely for failure to comply with any procedure, form, or on any technicality. An application seeking compensation and damages for human rights violations may be brought by motion under the Act. The court will consider the applicant's claims, sieve out the human rights violation related parts, and where a violation is proven, make the orders the court is mandated to grant under the Act.
Police Powers — Constitutional Mandate — Preservation of Law and Order
The Uganda Police Force has a constitutional mandate under Article 212(b) of the Constitution to preserve law and order. It is wrong for a suspect to resist arrest by police officers who have calmly approached, introduced themselves, and stated the purpose of arrest. Failure to condemn such behaviour would amount to sanctioning conduct that threatens law and order in society.

Legislation cited (15)

Cases cited (2)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kabatoreine Victoria Ariau v Uganda and Others 2026 UGHC 170 (27 February 2026)
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.