Wakilii

Lomilo v Attorney General [2017] UGHRC 29

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 violation of right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
Decision
Complaint allowed; complainant awarded damages and ordered provision of artificial limb

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 who shot the complainant in the knee while dispersing a crowd violated his right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The shooting was intentional, not accidental, and the soldiers failed to apply non-violent means before resorting to firearms. The Attorney General was held vicariously liable for the actions of the soldiers. The complainant was awarded UGX 20,000,000 in general damages, UGX 5,000,000 in exemplary damages, and UGX 110,000 in special damages, plus interest at 10% per annum. The UPDF was ordered to provide an artificial limb within three months.

Outcome

Complaint allowed; complainant awarded damages and ordered provision of artificial limb

Facts

In October 2008, the complainant was at Natumukaiskou Trading Centre when he saw UPDF soldiers driving approximately 30 animals. Civilians followed the soldiers, quarrelling about the seized animals. The soldiers began shooting at the crowd. The complainant was shot in the left knee, causing his leg to be completely shattered. He was taken to Moroto Referral Hospital, then transferred to Matany Hospital where his leg was amputated after doctors found the limb had lost blood supply due to damaged blood vessels. He was admitted for approximately two months. Medical evidence confirmed a gunshot wound with entry and exit wounds, fracture of the thigh bone, and necrosis of the lower leg necessitating amputation. The complainant, formerly a cattle trader, became disabled and dependent on crutches.

Issues

  1. Whether the Complainant's right to protection against torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment was violated by the Respondent's agents?
  2. Whether the Respondent is liable?
  3. Whether there is any remedy available to the Complainant?

Orders

  • The Complaint is allowed.
  • The UPDF is ordered to provide an artificial leg with a joint for the Complainant within three months from the date of this decision under the supervision of the Orthopedics department of Moroto Regional Hospital.
  • A rehabilitation report shall be filed with the Commission by the Orthopedics department of Moroto Regional Hospital in the first month after providing the artificial limb.
  • The Respondent is ordered to pay the Complainant a sum of UGX 20,000,000 as general damages for the violation of his right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment.
  • The Respondent is ordered to pay the Complainant a sum of UGX 5,000,000 as exemplary damages for the violation of his right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment.
  • The Respondent is ordered to pay the Complainant a sum of UGX 110,000 as special damages for the violation of his right to torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment.
  • The above total sum of UGX 25,110,000 shall attract interest at 10% per annum from the date of this decision till payment in full.
  • Either party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Human Rights — Torture and Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment — Use of Force by Security Forces — Intentional Shooting
When a soldier fires live bullets at a crowd, the act cannot be said to be unintentional; shooting a person on the leg is clearly an intentional act that constitutes cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment under Article 24 of the Constitution.
Human Rights — Use of Force by Law Enforcement — Duty to Apply Non-Violent Means First
Law enforcement officers must, as far as possible, apply non-violent means before resorting to the use of force and firearms, and may use force and firearms only if other means remain ineffective or without promise of achieving the intended result.
Administrative Law — Vicarious Liability — State Liability for Acts of Security Forces
Once it is proved that a servant was an employee of the master, there is a presumption that he was acting in the course of employment; the burden then lies on the master to prove the contrary.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Assessment for Permanent Disability from Gunshot Injury
The principle governing assessment of damages is that the injured party should be awarded such a sum of money as will put that party in the same position as the party would have been in if the party had not sustained the injuries.
Damages & Quantum — Exemplary Damages — Purpose and Award for Unconstitutional Conduct
Exemplary damages are not to enrich the complainant, but to punish the respondent and deter it from repeating its conduct; they may be awarded on top of general damages where state agents act unconstitutionally, arbitrarily and oppressively.
Damages & Quantum — Special Damages — Requirement of Specific Proof
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved; it is not enough to write down particulars and throw them to the court; the plaintiff has the duty to prove their damage with supporting evidence.
Human Rights — Remedies — Holistic Approach Including Rehabilitation
Monetary compensation alone cannot be regarded as adequate redress for victims of human rights violations; the tribunal must take a holistic approach and may order other legal remedies including long-term victim-centered rehabilitation efforts to restore physical abilities.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (21)

  • Issa Khakosi Wamusi v Ben Mukhwana (HCT-04-CV-CA-125 of 2012)
  • Arakit Mary Margaret v Attorney General (HCCS 0699 of 2003)
  • MTN (U) Limited v Henry Kabaaie (HCCS 504 of 2002)
  • Kiggundu John Baptist v Ndejje University (HCCS 109 of 2015)
  • Akugizibwe Amon v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. FPT/47 of 2006)
  • Apollo Amon v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint of 2006)
  • Muwonge v Attorney General [1967] EA 7
  • Rhoda M Nambi Kibirige v Attorney General [1988-90] HCB 133
  • Otim Jimmy and Another v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. G/344/2003)
  • Bashishana Francis v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. MBA/117/2005)
  • Iwina v Arua Town Council [1977] HCB 28
  • Robert Coussens v Attorney General (SCCA No. 8 of 1999)
  • Businge David v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. FP/13/2006)
  • Okello James v Attorney General (HCCS No. 574 of 2003)
  • Babwetera Moses v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. FPT/33/2008)
  • Sam Akankwasa v Attorney General (HCCS 202 of 2013)
  • Dr Nganwa William and Another v Attorney General (HCCS No. 640 of 2005)
  • Matsiko Silagi Bernard and Mbagukire Peter v Attorney General (HCCS No. 383 of 2002)
  • Nabukenya Margaret v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. JJA/103/2004)
  • Friday Silver Emojong v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. 63/1998)
  • Rosemary Nalwadda v Uganda AIDS Commission (HCCS No. 67 of 2011)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Lomilo v Attorney General 2017 UGHRC 29 (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.