Wakilii

Kato Gerald Ssemwanga v Uganda [2023] UGHRC 28

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 or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment
Decision
Complaint allowed; complainant awarded UGX 8,000,000 as general damages for violation of right to security of person

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 police shooting of the complainant during riot dispersal, though unintentional, violated his right to security of person under Article 9 of the ICCPR, not his right to freedom from torture. The State was held vicariously liable under Article 119(4)(c) of the Constitution. General damages of UGX 8,000,000 were awarded, taking into account that the shooting was accidental and that the police had paid some medical expenses.

Outcome

Complaint allowed; complainant awarded UGX 8,000,000 as general damages for violation of right to security of person

Facts

On 18 April 2011, the complainant was at Kitaka Trading Center attempting to stop people from destroying property when he was shot by a police officer in his right cheek during riot dispersal. He fell unconscious and regained consciousness at Mulago Hospital. Medical examination revealed a bullet lodged in his left cheek, fractures to his lower jaw and first spinal bone, and paralysis of his left hand. The bullet was surgically removed and he underwent physiotherapy. He suffered permanent deformity to his left hand, neck, and teeth, with ongoing pain, headaches, and general body weakness. Before the incident, he was a performer with a cultural troupe and worked as a porter. The police paid UGX 1,400,000 towards his medical expenses through then-spokesperson Judith Nabakooba, who visited him in hospital along with Brigadier Nalweyiso.

Issues

  1. Whether the Complainant's right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment was violated by the Respondent's agents.
  2. Whether the Respondent is liable therefor.
  3. Whether the Complainant is entitled to any legal remedy.

Orders

  • The complaint is allowed.
  • The Attorney General is ordered to pay to the Complainant a total sum of UGX 8,000,000 (Eight Million Shillings Only) as general damages for violation of his right to security of person.
  • The general damages shall attract interest at 10% from the date of this decision until payment in full.
  • Each party shall bear their own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Human Rights — Right to Security of Person — Police Use of Force — Duty to Warn Bystanders
Security officers violate the right to personal security when they unjustifiably inflict bodily injury. Where police fire shots to disperse a riot without warning innocent bystanders to disperse, and an uninvolved person is shot and injured, this constitutes a violation of the right to security of person under Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Human Rights — Torture — Definition and Elements — Distinction from Security of Person Violations
For an act to constitute torture under Article 24 of the Constitution and Article 1 of the UN Convention Against Torture, three elements must be satisfied: (a) actions that caused severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental; (b) the purpose was to obtain information or confession, punishment, intimidation, or discrimination; and (c) the actions were inflicted by or at the instigation of a public official. An unintentional shooting by police during riot dispersal, though causing severe injury, does not constitute torture where the second element is absent.
Constitutional Law — Vicarious Liability of the State — Police Officers as State Employees
Under Article 119(4)(c) of the Constitution, the State is vicariously liable for the acts or omissions of police officers committed in the course of executing their duties of maintaining law and order, even where the acts are unintentional.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Assessment — Mitigating Factors
In assessing general damages for violation of the right to security of person, the tribunal may take into account mitigating factors including that the injury was unintentional, that the respondent's agents expressed regret through hospital visits, and that the respondent paid a portion of the complainant's medical expenses.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (4)

  • Fred Tumuramye v Gerald Bwete and Others (UHRC Complaint No. 264 of 1999)
  • Robert Coussens v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1999)
  • Businge David v Attorney General and Asiitnwe Yasin (UHRC Complaint No. FP/13 of 2006)
  • Anthony Leehong v Jamaica (Human Rights Committee Communication No. 613 of 1995)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kato Gerald Ssemwanga v Uganda 2023 UGHRC 28 (25 May 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.