Wakilii

Kato Gerald Ssenyange v Attorney General [2023] UGHRC 30

Tribunal · 2023 Complaint Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Human rights complaint before the Uganda Human Rights Commission Tribunal alleging violation of right to freedom from torture
Decision
Complaint allowed with damages awarded to complainant

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 shooting was unintentional and did not constitute torture but found the respondent liable for violating the complainant's right to security of person. The Attorney General was ordered to pay UGX 8,000,000 as general damages with interest at the court rate from the date of decision.

Outcome

Complaint allowed with damages awarded to complainant

Facts

On 18 April 2011 at approximately 10:00 a.m., the complainant was at Kitaka Trading Center talking to people to stop them from destroying someone's property when he was shot by a police officer in his right side cheek. He lost consciousness and regained it at Mulago National Referral Hospital. As a result of the shooting, his hands and neck were deformed, rendering him unable to perform his previous work. He suffered constant pain in the head and spine and experienced general body weakness. Police officials including the Police Spokesperson Judith Nabakooba and Brigadier Nalweyiso visited the complainant in hospital and expressed regret for the shooting.

Issues

  1. Whether the shooting of the complainant by a police officer constituted a violation of his right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
  2. Whether the respondent is liable for violation of the complainant's right to security of person.
  3. What quantum of damages should be awarded for the violation.

Orders

  • The complaint is allowed.
  • The Attorney General is ordered to pay to the Complainant a total sum of UGX 8,000,000 (Uganda Shillings Eight Million Shillings Only) as general damages for violation of his right to security of person.
  • The general damages shall attract interest at the court rate 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 — Unintentional Shooting by Police Officer
Where a police officer unintentionally shoots a civilian causing injury and deformity, the state is liable for violation of the victim's right to security of person even though the shooting does not constitute torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
Human Rights — Torture — Distinction from Unintentional Harm
An unintentional shooting by a state agent does not constitute torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, but may ground liability for violation of other fundamental rights such as the right to security of person.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Violation of Right to Security of Person
General damages of UGX 8,000,000 are appropriate compensation for a victim who suffered shooting injuries resulting in deformity of hands and neck, inability to work, and constant pain in the head and spine.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kato Gerald Ssenyange v Attorney General 2023 UGHRC 30 (7 February 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.