Wakilii

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

High Court · [2026] UGHCCD 222 · 2026 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for enforcement of fundamental rights and freedoms under Article 50 of the Constitution on behalf of refugees and asylum seekers
Decision
Application partly allowed; declarations granted; permanent injunction issued restraining arrest or prosecution of recognized refugees working with valid Refugee Identity Cards; 2nd Respondent struck out for want of service

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 High Court has jurisdiction under Article 50 and the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act to hear applications for enforcement of non-derogable and other fundamental rights, including the justiciable right to livelihood. The applicant, a human rights activist, had locus standi under Article 50(2) to bring the application on behalf of refugees whose rights were allegedly violated. The application was filed within the 10-year limitation period. On the merits, the arrest and detention of a family member of a recognized refugee violated the Refugees Act s.36, as such persons are entitled to the same rights as the recognized refugee, including exemption from prosecution for unlawful entry under s.37. Application succeeded in part with declarations and a permanent injunction issued.

Outcome

Application partly allowed; declarations granted; permanent injunction issued restraining arrest or prosecution of recognized refugees working with valid Refugee Identity Cards; 2nd Respondent struck out for want of service

Facts

The applicant, a human rights activist, filed this application on behalf of four refugees and asylum seekers — Suther Rajesh Kumar, Ivon Live Shay, Patrice Mukulu Mwisha Nguba, and Mutoni Bijoux — alleging violations of their fundamental rights by the Attorney General and Inter-Aid Uganda. Mr. Kumar, an asylum seeker married to Ivon Live Shay (a recognized refugee), 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, excluding his Congolese wife. He was granted refugee status on 20 July 2017 and issued a Refugee Identity Card on 20 February 2018. On 23 November 2017, he was re-arrested for working on a refugee card. Ivon alleged she was violently attacked but denied the opportunity to record a statement at Old Kampala Police Station. Patrice alleged he suffered repeated threats, assaults, kidnapping, and torture since 2011, with no arrests made. The applicant sought declarations and orders including a permanent injunction restraining the arrest of recognized refugees, compensation, and establishment of a National Refugee Police Unit. The 1st Respondent entered appearance but did not file an affidavit in reply. The 2nd Respondent was not served and did not enter appearance.

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 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 that recognized refugees' right to work exempts them from requiring a work permit.
  • A declaration that recognized refugees and asylum seekers are entitled to all fundamental rights except those reserved for citizens.
  • A permanent injunction 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.
  • The 2nd Respondent is struck out from the proceedings for want of service.

Rules and key headnotes

Human Rights — Enforcement Procedure — Locus Standi — Third Party Applications
Article 50(2) of the Constitution and Section 3(2) of the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act allow any person or organisation to bring an action against the violation of another person's or group's human rights, regardless of direct interest in the matter. It is erroneous to introduce the test of sufficient interest in an application for human rights enforcement.
Human Rights — Limitation Period — Ten-Year Limitation
Section 19(1) of the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act provides a limitation period of 10 years from the occurrence of the human rights violation. Section 19(3) makes the Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act inapplicable to such applications.
Human Rights — Burden and Standard of Proof — Uncontested Allegations — Court's Discretion to Require Further Proof
Where a respondent fails to file an affidavit in reply, averments in the applicant's affidavit are presumed admitted but not automatically accepted as true. The court retains discretion under Order 8 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules to interrogate uncontested facts and require further proof, particularly where the applicant could have readily provided corroborative evidence such as charge sheets or station registers.
Refugees — Rights of Family Members — Protection from Prosecution for Unlawful Entry
Under Section 35 of the Refugees Act, a member of the family of a recognised refugee is entitled to the same rights and subject to the same obligations as the recognised refugee. Section 37 prohibits the prosecution of a refugee for unlawful entry or presence in Uganda. The arrest and prosecution of a spouse of a recognized refugee for unlawful entry violates Sections 25, 35, and 37 of the Refugees Act.
Refugees — Right to Work — Exemption from Work Permit Requirement
Recognized refugees are entitled to access to employment opportunities under Section 28(1)(e)(vi) of the Refugees Act and Article 17(1) of the 1951 Refugee Convention. Section 37 of the Refugees Act provides that proceedings shall not be instituted or continued against any person granted refugee status in respect of unlawful entry or presence in Uganda. Recognized refugees' right to work exempts them from requiring a work permit.
Constitutional Law — Right to Life — State's Duty to Protect — Burden of Proof of Failure to Investigate
Article 22 of the Constitution protects the right to life, and the police have a duty under Article 212 to protect life and prevent and detect crime. However, an applicant alleging police failure to investigate or arrest suspects must adduce cogent evidence of negligence, dilatory conduct, or deliberate failure in the discharge of police duties. Failure to produce such evidence, such as a formal complaint to the Office of the Prime Minister or UNHCR, falls below the required standard of proof.
Constitutional Law — Right to Liberty — Detention Beyond 48 Hours — Requirement for Corroborative Evidence
Article 23(4)(b) of the Constitution requires that a person arrested on reasonable suspicion of having committed a criminal offence must be brought to court not later than 48 hours from the time of arrest. To establish detention beyond 48 hours, the applicant must adduce cogent evidence confirming both the date of detention and the date of release, such as a charge sheet or station register. In the absence of such evidence and without explanation for failing to produce it, the allegation of unlawful detention fails.

Legislation cited (50)

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 222 (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.