Wakilii

Kisakye Maureen v Attorney General [2017] UGHRC 35

Tribunal · 2017 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 seeking compensation for violation of freedom from torture
Decision
Complainant awarded compensation of UGX 10,000,000 with interest at court rate from date of decision

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 complainant's right to freedom from torture was violated when a UPDF soldier shot her in the chest while she was unarmed during the 2009 Buganda riots. The Attorney General was held vicariously liable for the actions of the state agent acting in the course of employment. The complainant was awarded UGX 10,000,000 as compensation for the violation of her absolute constitutional right to freedom from torture.

Outcome

Complainant awarded compensation of UGX 10,000,000 with interest at court rate from date of decision

Facts

On 11 September 2009, the complainant was returning home from a prayer meeting at St. Augustine Church in Seeta, Gwafu village, when she and her companion were stopped by a uniformed UPDF soldier. Despite raising her hands, the soldier shot her in the chest at close range. She lost consciousness and sustained severe injuries including internal bleeding requiring medical intervention with a tube inserted through her ribs. The shooting occurred during the Buganda riots when UPDF soldiers were deployed to quell disturbances in the area. The complainant was admitted to hospital with gunshot wounds to her breast, chest, and forearm, classified as grievous harm. A witness corroborated that the soldier shot the complainant at close range and then fired at the ground around the witness's feet before forcing bystanders to a trading centre where they were beaten by other soldiers.

Issues

  1. Whether the Complainant's right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment was violated.
  2. Whether the Respondent (Attorney General) is liable for the violations.
  3. Whether there is any remedy due to the Complainant.

Orders

  • Complaint allowed.
  • Respondent to pay the Complainant UGX 10,000,000 (Uganda Shillings Ten Million) as compensation for violation of freedom from torture.
  • The total sum shall attract interest at Court rate from the date of this decision until payment in full.
  • Either party may appeal to the High Court of Uganda within 30 days from the date of this decision.

Rules and key headnotes

Human Rights — Freedom from Torture — Absolute and Non-Derogable Right
The right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is absolute and non-derogable under Article 24 and Article 44(a) of the Constitution of Uganda 1995, and no exceptional circumstance whatsoever, whether a state of war, threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as justification for torture.
Human Rights — Torture — Definition and Elements
Torture is defined as any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person by or with the consent or acquiescence of state authorities for purposes such as gaining information, punishment or intimidation, and is characterized and distinguished from other forms of ill treatment by the severe degree of suffering inflicted.
Tort Law — Vicarious Liability — State Liability for Acts of Agents
The Attorney General is vicariously liable for violations of human rights committed by state agents acting in the course of their employment, even where the servant is acting deliberately, wrongfully, negligently or criminally, if what was done was in the manner of carrying out what the agent was employed to carry out.
Human Rights — Compensation — Assessment of Quantum for Torture
In assessing compensation for violation of freedom from torture, the tribunal must consider the nature of torture and injuries sustained, the impact on the complainant's life, the absolute nature of the right under Article 44 of the Constitution, the innocence of the complainant, and previous awards in cases of a similar nature.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Human Rights Violations
The burden of proof in human rights complaints lies upon the person asserting that their rights have been violated, who must prove on a balance of probabilities that the facts supporting the violation exist, in accordance with sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act.
Evidence — Witness Testimony — Statements Made Under Shock
Statements made by a patient in shock, pale and dehydrated immediately after sustaining gunshot wounds cannot outweigh testimony and eyewitness accounts made when the witnesses were in a better state of mind.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (5)

  • Olupot Stephen v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. S/91 of 2003)
  • Muwonge v Attorney General [1967] EA 17
  • Jones v Tower Boots Co Ltd [1997] All ER 40B
  • Christopher Ssajabi Nsereko v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. 112 of 1999)
  • Isabirye Kiwule v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. J/35 of 2003)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kisakye Maureen v Attorney General 2017 UGHRC 35 (14 February 2017)
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.