Kotol Rose v Attorney General [2023] UGHRC 12
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 Uganda Human Rights Commission dismissed a complaint alleging UPDF soldiers violated the right to life of Loteng Lopuyale during a cordon and search operation. The tribunal held that the complainant failed to discharge the burden of proof because no witness saw the deceased being beaten, there was no postmortem to establish cause of death, and the deceased was elderly and bedridden, making it possible he died from illness. The tribunal found on a balance of probabilities that the respondent's agents were not responsible for his death.
Outcome
Complaint dismissed for failure to prove violation of right to life
Facts
On 27 May 2006 at approximately 5:00am, UPDF soldiers commanded by Kasule from Matany Barracks conducted a cordon and search operation in Lorengekungin village, Lokupoi parish, Matany Sub-County, Napak District. The soldiers fired bullets in the air, surrounded the village, and ordered residents out while searching for guns. Loteng Lopuyale, an elderly bedridden man, remained inside his hut with a six-year-old boy. The soldiers separated villagers by sex and beat the men using sticks, gun butts, kicking and stepping on them. Soldiers entered huts to search. The complainant, Lopuyale's wife, alleged that when she returned inside around 10:00am, she found her husband either dying or dead with injuries. The soldiers recovered three guns from other villagers that day. No postmortem examination was conducted on the deceased's body.
Issues
- Whether the respondent's servants violated Lopuyale Loteng's right to life.
- Whether the late Lopuyale's family is entitled to compensation.
Orders
- The complaint is dismissed.
- Each party to bear their own costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (5)
- Constitution of the Republic of Uganda Article 22(1)
- Evidence Act Cap 6 s.101(1)
- Evidence Act Cap 6 s.102
- International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 6
- African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights Article 4
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.