Wakilii

Lokwii Charles Ilungole v Attorney General and Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 351 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCD 32 · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum challenging alleged unlawful detention
Decision
Writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum issued directing respondents to produce applicant before court on 18 February 2026

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

Held that where affidavit evidence establishes reasonable grounds to believe a person is detained by state security agencies without lawful authority or charge, a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum must issue. The court found that the applicant, through sworn testimony of his wife and a witness who visited him at DIS headquarters, had discharged the initial burden of showing he was in the respondents' custody. The respondents' denial, unsupported by documentary evidence and contradicted by the applicant's witnesses, was insufficient to rebut this. The writ was granted directing production of the applicant before court.

Outcome

Writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum issued directing respondents to produce applicant before court on 18 February 2026

Facts

On 13 August 2025, the applicant was arrested by persons in military fatigues and taken away in a drone from Extra-Time Bar in Nakwero at approximately 10-11 pm. His wife, Nassozi Noeline, reported him missing to local authorities and Kasangati Police Station but received no assistance. She later visited the Defence Intelligence and Security (DIS) headquarters at Mbuya on 24 October 2025, where she was allowed to see and interact with her husband. She returned on 27 October 2025 to deliver medicine but was denied further access. A witness, Cpl Takan Simon Peter, also visited DIS headquarters on 11 December 2025 and briefly interacted with the applicant. The respondents denied holding the applicant and stated that all detention facilities had been checked with no trace of him. The applicant had not been charged with any offence or produced before any court since his arrest.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant is being unlawfully detained by the respondents at the Defence Intelligence and Security headquarters at Mbuya.
  2. Whether the applicant has discharged the burden of proving that he is in the custody of the respondents.
  3. Whether a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum should be issued directing the respondents to produce the applicant before court.

Orders

  • An order of a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is hereby issued directing the respondents to produce the applicant Lokwii Charles Ilungole before the High Court of Uganda at Kampala (Civil Division) on Wednesday 18/02/2026 at 12:00 pm.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Right to Personal Liberty — Habeas Corpus — Absolute Right
The right to habeas corpus under Articles 23(9) and 44(d) of the 1995 Constitution is an absolute right from which no limitation or derogation whatsoever is permitted and therefore there cannot be any justification for its restriction or violation.
Human Rights — Personal Liberty — Constitutional Safeguards — 48-Hour Rule
Where a person has been arrested and detained without being arraigned before a court of law within the 48-hour period provided for in Article 23(4) of the Constitution, an application for habeas corpus may be brought to have such person released.
Administrative Law — Habeas Corpus — Purpose and Scope — Review of Legality of Detention
The purpose of a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is to review the legality of the applicant's arrest, imprisonment and detention and to challenge the authority of the detaining authority to continue holding the applicant. It is used when a person is held without charges or is denied due process and ensures that a prisoner can be released from unlawful detention.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Habeas Corpus Applications — Proving Negative Assertions
In habeas corpus applications, it would stretch traditional requirements too far to require the applicant to provide documentary evidence such as registers and visitor logs from detention facilities, as such information is in the hands of the respondents. Requiring an applicant to prove a negative assertion is intrinsically difficult, and what is important is that the deponent has been able to convince the court that there is reason to believe the missing person is in the custody of the respondents.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Habeas Corpus — Onus on Detaining Authority
While the general burden of proof in a habeas corpus application rests on the applicant pursuant to Section 101 of the Evidence Act, the onus of establishing the lawfulness of the deprivation of liberty rests on the detaining authority once the applicant has established a prima facie case of detention.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (9)

  • Subramaniam v Public Prosecutor [1956] 1 WLR 965
  • Robert Kabonero v African Kings (U) Ltd and Another (HCCS No. 685 of 2022)
  • Yakobo M. Senkungu and Others v Cresensio Mukasa (SCCA No. 17 of 2014)
  • Rtd. Col. Dr. Kizza Besigye v Uganda (Criminal Misc. Application No. 228 of 2005)
  • Re Sentamu and Another [1999] 2 EA 302
  • Barnardo v Ford [1892] AC 326
  • Jovia Karuhanga v Inspector General of Police and 3 Others (Misc Cause No. 86 of 2013)
  • Bintu Adan Osman and 2 Others v Director of Public Prosecutions and 3 Others [2020] KEHC 2098
  • May v Ferndale Institution [2005] 3 SCR 809

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Lokwii Charles Ilungole v Attorney General and Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 351 of 2025) [2026] UGHCCD 32 (12 February 2026)
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.