Wakilii

Kisule Siraji Kiiza v Uganda [2016] UGHRC 44

Tribunal · 2016 Complaint Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Human rights complaint seeking compensation for alleged violation of right to life of complainant's wife during 2009 Buganda riots
Decision
Complaint allowed; compensation awarded to estate of deceased for benefit of children and legal dependents

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 deceased's right to life under Article 22 of the Constitution was violated when she was shot by state security personnel deployed to quell the September 2009 Buganda riots. The Attorney General was held vicariously liable under the Government Proceedings Act for the actions of police officers and UPDF soldiers acting in the course of their employment. The Tribunal awarded UGX 30,000,000 in general damages to the estate of the deceased for the benefit of her children and legal dependents.

Outcome

Complaint allowed; compensation awarded to estate of deceased for benefit of children and legal dependents

Facts

On 12 September 2009, during riots following police blocking the Kabaka of Buganda from visiting Kayunga District, Auma Judith Jalia was shot while washing clothes on the veranda of her home at Kawempe Police Barracks. A neighbour witnessed something hit her back and she collapsed. She was rushed to Mulago Hospital but died before arrival. A postmortem revealed a bullet entry wound in her back, with the bullet lodged in her right lung, causing fatal bleeding. Police officers and UPDF soldiers had been deployed 200-300 meters away to quell the riots. The deceased was 25 years old, a primary school teacher, and left two minor children. Her husband, a police constable, was at Kawempe Police Station when the incident occurred.

Issues

  1. Whether Auma Judith's right to life was violated by the Respondent's agents/servants.
  2. Whether the Respondent is liable for the violation of the deceased's right to life.
  3. Whether the Complainant is entitled to any remedy.

Orders

  • The complaint is allowed.
  • The Attorney General is ordered to pay to the estate of late Auma Judith a total sum of UGX 30,000,000 as general damages for the violation of her right to life.
  • The said amount of UGX 30,000,000 will carry interest at court rate from the date of this decision until payment in full.
  • Each party shall bear their own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Right to Life — Constitutional Protection — Arbitrary Deprivation
The right to life protected by Article 22(1) of the Constitution prohibits intentional deprivation of life except in execution of a sentence passed in a fair trial by a competent court, confirmed by the highest appellate court.
Vicarious Liability — State Liability for Acts of Security Personnel
Under the principle of vicarious liability, the state is liable for torts committed by its servants or agents in the course of their employment, even if the acts are wrongful, negligent, or done without authority, provided they are done in the manner of carrying out what the servant was employed to do.
Attorney General — Representation of Government — Vicarious Liability
The Attorney General represents the Government in civil proceedings under Article 119(4)(c) of the Constitution and is vicariously liable for violations of rights committed by state agents acting in the course of their employment under the Government Proceedings Act.
Circumstantial Evidence — Corroboration — Identification of Perpetrators
Where direct evidence of the identity of a perpetrator is unavailable, a tribunal may rely on circumstantial evidence corroborated by expert testimony and the surrounding circumstances to establish liability on the balance of probabilities.
General Damages — Violation of Right to Life — Assessment Factors
In assessing compensation for violation of the right to life, the tribunal considers the anguish, loss and suffering imposed on the family by the death of a breadwinner and provider, the age and occupation of the deceased, the number of dependents, and awards from comparable cases.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (4)

  • Muwonge v Attorney General [1967] 1 EA 17
  • Jones v Tower Boots Co Ltd [1997] ALLER 40
  • Mugisha Juma v Attorney General (Complaint No. UHRC/FP/144/2003)
  • Katantazi Wilson v Attorney General (Complaint No. UHRC/57/2004)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kisule Siraji Kiiza v Uganda 2016 UGHRC 44 (24 November 2016)
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.