Wakilii

Kyosimire Safina v Uganda [2017] UGHRC 68

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 alleged torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by police officers
Decision
Complaint allowed; Respondent ordered to pay UGX 12,000,000 in general damages with interest at 10% per annum

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 Tribunal held that police officers who severely beat a pregnant woman suspected of theft, causing her to defecate and urinate on herself and remain naked in public, violated her constitutional right to freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. The State was held vicariously liable and ordered to pay UGX 12,000,000 in general damages. The Tribunal confirmed that the right to protection from torture is an absolute right under Article 44(a) of the Constitution.

Outcome

Complaint allowed; Respondent ordered to pay UGX 12,000,000 in general damages with interest at 10% per annum

Facts

On 7 December 2007, police officers went to arrest Kyosimire Safina on allegations of stealing a bunch of bananas belonging to one Mugizi. Two armed police officers in maroon uniform severely beat the complainant, who was three months pregnant at the time, using a stick cut from wood used for threshing millet. The Defence Secretary held her arms while the police beat her on the buttocks, back, thighs and lower abdomen. During the beating, her clothes were torn off, leaving her naked, and she defecated and urinated on herself. The beating lasted from approximately 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. She was then taken to Kijumo Police Post, spent time in police cells, and was later remanded to Bushenyi Government Prison for 18 days. Medical examination revealed bruises on her left buttock and anterior aspect of left thigh, severe pain in the left renal angle, and soft tissue injury with blunt abdominal trauma. She subsequently required a caesarean section to deliver her tenth child and suffered ongoing back pain that prevented her from farming.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondent's agents/servants violated the Complainant's right to protection from torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.
  2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any remedies.

Orders

  • The complaint is allowed.
  • The Respondent is ordered to pay the Complainant a sum of UGX 12,000,000 (Twelve Million Shillings) as general damages for violation of her right to protection from torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment.
  • The UGX 12,000,000 will carry interest at a rate of 10% per annum from the date hereof until payment in full.
  • Any party dissatisfied with this decision or any part thereof may appeal to the High Court of Uganda within 30 days from the date hereof.

Rules and key headnotes

Human Rights — Torture and Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment — Definition and Elements
Torture is defined as an act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for purposes such as obtaining information or a confession, punishing, intimidating or coercing, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or person acting in official capacity. Four essential ingredients must be proved: (i) the action caused the victim severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental; (ii) such pain and suffering was intentionally inflicted; (iii) the purpose was to obtain information or a confession or for punishment, intimidation, coercion or discrimination; and (iv) the actions were inflicted by or at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of, a public official or person acting in official capacity.
Constitutional Law — Fundamental Rights — Non-Derogable Rights — Freedom from Torture
The right to protection from torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment is an absolute right under Article 44(a) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda and is non-derogable. The freedoms enshrined under Article 44 cannot be limited or suspended under any circumstances.
Tort Law — Vicarious Liability — State Liability for Police Officers — Identification of Servants
Where police officers are in uniform, armed, and acting in the course of their duties to effect an arrest, the State is vicariously liable for their tortious acts even if the specific names of the officers are not established. The fact that officers of the Local Administration Police (integrated into the Uganda Police Force by the Police Amendment Act 2006) were wearing maroon uniforms at the material time does not negate State liability, as this was the recognised uniform of that branch of the police force during the relevant period.
Human Rights — Remedies — Compensation for Torture and Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment
Where the Uganda Human Rights Commission Tribunal is satisfied that there has been an infringement of a human right or freedom, it may order payment of compensation or any other legal remedy or redress under Article 53(2) of the Constitution. Compensation is appropriate where State agents have subjected a complainant to severe beatings causing physical injury, public humiliation, and lasting psychological trauma.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Human Rights Complaints
In a human rights complaint, the complainant bears the burden of proving the facts asserted to the satisfaction of the tribunal. This duty remains even where the respondent does not call defence witnesses but only cross-examines the complainant and her witnesses and files written submissions.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (2)

  • Attorney General v Salvatori Abuki (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1998)
  • Jovlyn Barugahare v Attorney General (SCCA No. 281 of 1993)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kyosimire Safina v Uganda 2017 UGHRC 68 (8 November 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.