Wakilii

Lolem Lotogoi and Another v Attorney General [2018] UGHRC 32

Tribunal · 2018 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 violation of property rights by UPDF soldiers
Decision
Complaint allowed; general damages awarded to both complainants (one deceased, award to estate); interest awarded at 15% per annum from date of decision

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 property under Article 26 when they destroyed crops during a cordon and search operation. The Respondent was vicariously liable because the soldiers were deployed by the Ministry of Defence, which failed to provide adequate provisions, tempting the soldiers to harvest crops to survive while performing state duties. The Tribunal awarded UGX 8,000,000 in general damages.

Outcome

Complaint allowed; general damages awarded to both complainants (one deceased, award to estate); interest awarded at 15% per annum from date of decision

Facts

In September 2007, UPDF soldiers based at Kathile Army Detach entered the complainants' garden in Lotim Village, Kaabong District during a cordon and search operation. The soldiers uprooted, harvested, and ate maize and sorghum crops that were ready for harvest. The complainants, who were co-wives sharing the garden, found the soldiers in the garden and followed them to the barracks to report the incident but received no assistance. The complainants testified that the soldiers destroyed crops from their garden of approximately 7-8 acres, which normally yielded 5-7 granaries annually. Witnesses confirmed seeing uniformed armed UPDF soldiers in the garden eating and cooking the harvested crops. The second complainant passed away during the proceedings but had already given evidence.

Issues

  1. Whether the Complainants' right to property was violated?
  2. Whether the Respondent is liable?
  3. Whether there are any remedies available to the Complainants?

Orders

  • The complaint is allowed.
  • The Respondent is ordered to pay Lolem Lotogoi a sum of UGX 4,000,000 as general damages for the violation of her right to property.
  • The Respondent is ordered to pay to the estate of the Late Loyolo Maria Lotogoi a sum of UGX 4,000,000 as general damages for the violation of her right to property.
  • The said total sum of UGX 8,000,000 shall carry interest at 15% per annum from the date of the decision until payment in full.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Right to Property — Article 26 — Destruction of Crops by State Agents
The right to property under Article 26 of the Constitution is violated when state agents destroy a person's crops without lawful justification or compensation, even during security operations.
Administrative Law — Vicarious Liability — State Liability for Acts of Soldiers
The state is vicariously liable for acts of soldiers deployed on official operations where the soldiers' wrongful conduct arises from the state's failure to provide adequate provisions, causing the soldiers to resort to unlawful means to survive while performing state duties.
Administrative Law — Vicarious Liability — Frolic of One's Own — Distinction
Where many soldiers routinely engage in conduct that enables them to perform their state functions, such conduct ceases to be a frolic of their own and becomes an official act for which the state is liable, distinguishing it from isolated acts by one or two soldiers acting stealthily.
Human Rights — Remedies — Compensation for Property Rights Violations
Where a human rights violation has been established, the complainant is entitled to compensation as a remedy, and such compensation may pass to the estate of a deceased complainant who had given evidence before death.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Balance of Probabilities — Unchallenged Evidence
Where evidence remains unchallenged by the respondent, the tribunal construes the same as proof of the facts alleged, and the complainant satisfies the burden of proof on a balance of probabilities.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (9)

  • Osotraco Limited v Attorney General (HCCS No. 1380 of 1986)
  • Gideon Emaru v Attorney General (HMC No. 071 of 2005)
  • Annet Namirimu Ndaula v Rev Aloni Mulondo & Another (HCCS No. 27 of 2011)
  • Okello Tom Ibrahim & Another v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. G/88/2005)
  • Katantazi Wilson v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. JJA/57/2004)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Stephen Wlabosi (SCCA No. 26 of 1995)
  • Dawson Okolong v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. JJ/38/2003)
  • AKPM Lutaya v Attorney General (SCCA No. 10 of 2002)
  • Bagume John v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. JJA/10/2007)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Lolem Lotogoi and Another v Attorney General 2018 UGHRC 32 (21 May 2018)
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.