Wakilii

Laker & 102 Others v Uganda & Kwoyelo v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application 35 of 2024)

High Court · [2024] UGHCICD 15 · 2024 Application Partly Allowed — Monetary Reparations Awarded AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for reparation orders for victims following conviction of Thomas Kwoyelo for war crimes and crimes against humanity
Decision
Application for reparations partly allowed with monetary awards made against the State; non-pecuniary measures declared necessary but requiring legislative action

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 1 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.

Good law Followed in 1 case and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. 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 Court held that victims are entitled to reparations under both domestic and international law. Primary liability rests with the convict, but where the convict is indigent, the State bears responsibility to provide reparations under customary international law and international humanitarian law obligations. The Court awarded monetary reparations: UGX 10,000,000 per deceased person; UGX 4,000,000 per person for bodily injury; UGX 3,500,000 per household for property loss; and UGX 5,000,000 per direct victim of sexual gender-based violence. Non-pecuniary measures requiring legislative action were declared necessary but not ordered pending establishment of a legal framework.

Outcome

Application for reparations partly allowed with monetary awards made against the State; non-pecuniary measures declared necessary but requiring legislative action

Facts

This was an application for reparations arising from the conviction of Thomas Kwoyelo for 44 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Northern Uganda between 1993 and 2005 as a commander of the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA). 103 victims participated in the trial. Victims suffered death, bodily injury, abduction, sexual violence, and property loss during attacks on Aberra village, Pagak IDP Camp, and other locations. The convict was sentenced to 25 years imprisonment in August 2024. The Legal Representatives for Victims sought reparations including monetary compensation, establishment of a Trust Fund, and various symbolic and collective community-based measures. The Attorney General opposed the application arguing reparations liability rests solely with the convict, not the State. The convict claimed indigence having been abducted at age 12 and living in the bush until capture, with no assets or income.

Issues

  1. Whether victims of war crimes and crimes against humanity are entitled to reparations.
  2. Whether the responsibility to make reparations lies with the convict or with the State through the Attorney General.
  3. Whether the Court has jurisdiction to order the Attorney General to establish a Trust Fund for Victims.
  4. What are the appropriate principles, types and modalities of reparations for victims of atrocity crimes.
  5. What are the eligibility criteria for beneficiaries of reparations orders.
  6. Whether customary international law principles on state responsibility for reparations are directly applicable in Ugandan domestic law.

Orders

  • Monetary reparations awarded: UGX 10,000,000 per deceased person.
  • Monetary reparations awarded: UGX 4,000,000 per person for bodily injury.
  • Monetary reparations awarded: UGX 3,500,000 per household for property loss.
  • Monetary reparations awarded: UGX 5,000,000 per direct victim of sexual gender-based violence.
  • Applicants for reparations must apply within 360 days.
  • Application by Foundation for Justice and Development Initiatives to join as amicus curiae granted.
  • Application by International Centre for Transitional Justice to join as amicus curiae rejected for lack of neutrality.
  • Declaratory order: No legislative framework exists for establishment, management and funding of a Victims Trust Fund, requiring urgent attention of relevant government institutions.
  • Prayers for establishment of Trust Fund, annual budgeting, and Draft Implementation Plan rejected as policy matters requiring legislation.
  • All monetary reparations constitute judgment debts subject to principles and procedures applicable to judgment debts.

Rules and key headnotes

Reparations — Primary Liability of Convict
Under both domestic and international law, the primary obligation to pay reparations to victims of atrocity crimes lies with the convicted person who committed the crimes.
State Responsibility for Reparations — Customary International Law
Under customary international law, where reparations are not fully available from the convicted offender or other sources, the State has an obligation to provide reparations to victims of gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law.
State Responsibility — Duty of Vigilance in Armed Conflict
In situations of armed conflict, the State has a duty of vigilance to protect the civilian population from direct attacks by belligerent forces. Responsibility is engaged unless the State proves that particular injury was not caused by failure to meet its obligations, creating a form of strict liability for harm occurring in conflict zones under State jurisdiction.
Direct Applicability of Customary International Law
Customary international law, unlike treaty law, does not require express approval by domestic political actors or ratification under Article 123 of the Constitution. Generally recognised principles of customary international law are self-executing and form an inseparable part of the domestic legal system, applicable by courts without need for enactment by Parliament.
UN General Assembly Resolutions — Binding Effect as Customary Law
UN General Assembly resolutions adopted unanimously or nearly unanimously may constitute binding customary international law when they reflect widespread, representative and uniform state practice accepted as law. Resolutions 40/34 (1985) and 60/147 (2005) on victim reparations are expressions of customary international law establishing state obligations to provide reparations when offenders cannot.
Reparations — Types and Modalities
Reparations for victims of atrocity crimes include restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, measures of satisfaction, and guarantees of non-repetition. They may be individual or collective, monetary or non-monetary, and should be appropriate, adequate, prompt and proportionate to the harm suffered.
Assessment of Reparations — Means Test and Proportionality
In assessing quantum of reparations, the court must balance the need for adequate compensation with the capacity to pay, applying principles of proportionality and considering the aggregate number of victims. International law limits compensation such that it must not exceed the payment capacity of the responsible state nor deprive its people of means of subsistence.

Legislation cited (14)

Cases cited (8)

  • Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo ICC-01/04-01/06
  • Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda ICC-01/04-02/06
  • Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen ICC-02/04-01/15
  • Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), ICJ, Reparations Judgement, 9 February 2022
  • Ssebuwufu Muhamed & 7 Others v Uganda Court of Appeal Consolidated Criminal Appeals Nos. 158 and 191 of 2019
  • John Muhanguzi Kashaka & 2 Others v Uganda Criminal Appeals Nos 53, 75 & 77 of 2020
  • Prof J. Oloka Onyango and eight others v. Amama Mbabazi and Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, S.C. Civil Application No. 2 of 2016
  • Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982)

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

Laker & 102 Others v Uganda & Kwoyelo v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application 35 of 2024) [2024] UGHCICD 15 (16 December 2024)
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.