Wakilii

Lokoro and Another v Attorney General [2017] UGHRC 26

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 alleging torture by UPDF soldiers
Decision
Complaint allowed; complainants awarded compensation for torture by state agents

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 UPDF soldiers violated the complainants' constitutional right to freedom from torture when they beat and kicked two women while searching for a missing donkey. The soldiers acted on mere presumption without lawful authority. The Attorney General was held vicariously liable for the actions of state agents acting in the course of their employment. Each complainant was awarded UGX 7,000,000 in compensation.

Outcome

Complaint allowed; complainants awarded compensation for torture by state agents

Facts

In January 2010, UPDF soldiers from Losilang Army detachment went to the complainants' village searching for a missing donkey following a cattle raid. The soldiers found a donkey with bleeding ears in the complainants' kraal and presumed it was stolen property. When the first complainant attempted to stop the soldiers from taking animals from the kraal, the soldiers beat, slapped and kicked her in the abdomen until she lost consciousness. When the second complainant tried to intervene, soldiers pushed her to the ground and kicked her in the chest. The soldiers fired shots in the air to disperse gathering residents and drove the animals to the barracks. The animals were only returned after residents including the complainants paid UGX 20,000 to the soldiers. Two eyewitnesses corroborated the complainants' accounts of the beating.

Issues

  1. Whether the Complainants' right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment was violated by the Respondent's agents.
  2. Whether the Respondent is liable.
  3. Whether there is any remedy due to the Complainants.

Orders

  • The complaint is allowed.
  • The Respondent shall pay the 1st Complainant Lokoro Rita a sum of UGX 7,000,000 as compensation for the violation of her right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
  • The Respondent shall pay the 2nd Complainant Naduk Lucia a sum of UGX 7,000,000 as compensation for the violation of her right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
  • The total sum of UGX 14,000,000 shall carry interest at a rate of 10% per annum from the date hereof until payment in full.

Rules and key headnotes

Human Rights — Torture — Definition and Elements — Physical and Mental Pain Intentionally Inflicted by State Agents
Torture under Article 1 of the Convention Against Torture requires four elements: (a) the action caused severe physical or mental pain and suffering; (b) such pain was intentionally inflicted; (c) the purpose was to obtain information, punish, intimidate or coerce the victim, or for any discriminatory reason; and (d) the act was carried out by or with the consent of a public official or person acting in official capacity.
Human Rights — Torture — Proof — Medical Evidence Not Required
It is not a requirement of law that every allegation of assault or torture must be proved by medical evidence. Cogent eyewitness evidence can suffice. Medical evidence helps prove the gravity of the assault but is not essential to establish that the assault occurred.
Constitutional Law — Fundamental Rights — Freedom from Torture — Non-Derogable Right
The right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Article 24 of the Constitution is absolute and non-derogable under Article 44(a). No exceptional circumstances whatsoever may be invoked as justification for torture.
Tort Law — Vicarious Liability — State Liability for Acts of Servants — Course of Employment
The Attorney General is vicariously liable for wrongful acts of state agents including UPDF soldiers where the acts were done in the course of employment, even if the acts were wrongful, unauthorized, or done for the servant's own benefit, provided they were done in the manner of carrying out what the servant was employed to do.
Human Rights — Remedies — Compensation — Quantum for Torture
Where torture by state agents is established, the victim is entitled to compensation under Article 53(2) of the Constitution. The quantum must reflect the seriousness of the breach, the physical and mental suffering inflicted, and the absolute nature of the right violated.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (5)

  • Fred Kainamura and Others v Attorney General (1994 KALR 92)
  • Muwonge v Attorney General (1967 EA 17)
  • Jones v Tower Boots Co Ltd [1997] All ER 40B
  • Eric Bosco Akera v Attorney General (UHRC [2003-2007] 48)
  • State v Williams (1995 1 CHRL 35)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Lokoro and Another v Attorney General 2017 UGHRC 26 (10 April 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.