Wakilii

Kasajja Brian v Attorney General and Another (Miscellaneous Cause 199 of 2019)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCD 217 · 2026 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for enforcement of fundamental rights under Articles 50(1), (2), 17(1)(c), 126(2)(e), (c) of the Constitution and the Judicature (Fundamental Rights and Freedoms Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2008
Decision
Application succeeded in part. Declarations issued concerning rights of family members of refugees and refugees' right to work. Permanent injunction granted against unlawful arrests. 2nd Respondent struck out for want of service. Most other claims dismissed for insufficient evidence.

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 held that it had jurisdiction to hear the application under Articles 50, 44, and 45 of the Constitution and the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act. The applicant, acting on behalf of four refugees, had locus standi under Article 50(2). The application was brought within the 10-year limitation period under Section 19(1) of the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act. The Court found that arresting Mr. Suther Rajesh Kumar, who was married to a recognised refugee, violated his rights as a family member under Section 36 of the Refugee Act. The Court granted partial relief, including declarations on refugees' rights to work and permanent injunctions restraining unlawful arrests, but dismissed most other claims for insufficient evidence.

Outcome

Application succeeded in part. Declarations issued concerning rights of family members of refugees and refugees' right to work. Permanent injunction granted against unlawful arrests. 2nd Respondent struck out for want of service. Most other claims dismissed for insufficient evidence.

Facts

The applicant, a human rights activist, filed this application on behalf of four refugees and their families: Suther Rajesh Kumar (an Indian national married to a Congolese refugee), his wife Ivon Live Shay, Patrice Mukulu Mwisha Nguba, and Mutoni Bijoux. Rajesh was arrested on 22 March 2016 by immigration officials for working on an asylum seeker certificate. He was detained and released on bond on 25 March 2016. Immigration officials required a surety with a valid Indian passport. On 15 June 2017, the Office of the Prime Minister wrote to immigration stating it was illegal to detain Rajesh pending his refugee application. Rajesh was granted refugee status on 20 July 2017 and issued a Refugee ID Card on 20 February 2018. He was re-arrested on 23 November 2017 for working on a refugee card. Ivon was attacked on 12 November 2015 and alleged police refused her statement. Patrice reported multiple attacks since 2011. The applicant alleged violations of rights to liberty, life, livelihood, dignity, and equality. The 2nd Respondent did not appear. The Attorney General entered appearance but filed no affidavit in reply.

Issues

  1. Whether the court has jurisdiction to handle this application.
  2. Whether the applicant has locus standi to bring this application.
  3. Whether the application is barred by time.
  4. Whether the respondent infringed on the rights alleged in the application.
  5. What are the remedies available.

Orders

  • A declaration doth issue that the actions of the 1st respondent's agents of arresting Mr. Suther Rajesh Kumar who was married to a registered and recognized refugee, violated and infringed all the rights of a family member of a recognised refugee as provided for under Section 36 of the Refugee Act, Cap. 312.
  • A declaration doth issue that recognized refugees' right to work exempts them from requiring a work permit.
  • A declaration doth issue that recognized refugees and asylum seekers are entitled to all fundamental rights except those reserved for citizens.
  • A Permanent injunction doth issue restraining the 1st Respondent from arresting or prosecuting recognized refugees working with valid Refugee Identity Cards save in line with the law on reasonable suspicion of commission of an offence.
  • The applicant is granted a third of the costs of this application.
  • 2nd Respondent struck from the proceedings for want of service.

Rules and key headnotes

Immigration — Refugees — Family Members — Rights Under Section 36 of Refugee Act
A family member of a recognised refugee, including a spouse, is entitled to the same rights and subject to the same obligations as the recognised refugee, and may not be lawfully arrested or detained for unlawful entry or presence in Uganda where the refugee has been granted recognised status.
Human Rights — Locus Standi — Third Party Applications — Article 50(2) of Constitution
Under Article 50(2) of the Constitution and Section 3(2) of the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act, any person may bring an action for the enforcement of another person's human rights without requiring proof of sufficient interest in the matter, the test being solely whether a fundamental right has been claimed to be violated.
Immigration — Refugees — Right to Work — Exemption from Work Permit Requirements
Recognised refugees are entitled under Section 28(1)(e)(vi) of the Refugee Act and Article 17(1) of the 1951 Refugee Convention to access employment opportunities and are exempt from work permit requirements, and may not be prosecuted for working on a valid Refugee Identity Card.
Constitutional Law — Fundamental Rights — Rights of Refugees and Asylum Seekers
Recognised refugees and asylum seekers in Uganda are entitled to all fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution except those rights expressly reserved for citizens of Uganda.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Unrebutted Affidavit Evidence — Limits of Admission
Where a respondent fails to file an affidavit in reply, the applicant's averments are presumed admitted under Order 8 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, but the court retains discretion to require further proof and may reject admissions if they lack corroborative evidence or internal consistency, the burden of proof on balance of probabilities remaining with the applicant.
Human Rights — Limitation Period — Section 19(1) Human Rights (Enforcement) Act
Applications for enforcement of fundamental rights under the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act must be brought within 10 years from the date of the alleged violation, and the Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act does not apply to such applications.
Immigration — Refugees — Protection from Prosecution — Section 37 Refugee Act
Proceedings shall not be instituted or continued against a refugee or family member of a refugee in respect of unlawful entry or presence in Uganda if the person has been granted refugee status or intends to apply for recognition as a refugee, notwithstanding the provisions of the Uganda Citizenship and Immigration Control Act.

Legislation cited (53)

Cases cited (9)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kasajja Brian v Attorney General and Another (Miscellaneous Cause 199 of 2019) [2026] UGHCCD 217 (10 July 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.