Wakilii

Lomise Lina v Attorney General [2018] UGHRC 31

Tribunal · 2018 Complaint Allowed — Damages Awarded 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 life and torture resulting in death during disarmament operations
Decision
Complaint allowed with damages awarded to the estate of the deceased for violation of right to life

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 deceased's constitutional right to life under Article 22(1) when they arrested, tortured, and killed him during disarmament operations in 2008. The fact that the soldiers were criminally convicted does not bar civil compensation claims. The Attorney General is vicariously liable for acts committed by state agents within the scope of their employment. The estate was awarded UGX 55,000,000 in general damages.

Outcome

Complaint allowed with damages awarded to the estate of the deceased for violation of right to life

Facts

In 2008 during disarmament operations in Kotido District, UPDF soldiers arrested Lomuna Kolipus on allegations of possessing a gun and detained him at Lokitaleabu Army detach. His wife Lomise Lina visited him in detention that evening and found him healthy. The next morning when she returned with food, soldiers chased her away. Another detainee later informed her that Lomuna had died and his body was being removed. The body was discovered near an MTN mast in Kotido town with bruises on the shoulders and swollen testicles. Witnesses testified that soldiers beat and tortured Lomuna, hanging him from a tree with rope while beating him with sticks. He died from the beatings. UPDF Commander Lt Col Muhanga confirmed in a letter that Lomuna was found dead in the detach on 17 September 2008. Five soldiers including Lt Richard Watum were court-martialed and convicted in October 2008, receiving sentences of 12-14 years imprisonment.

Issues

  1. Whether the Late Lomuna Kolipus' right to life was violated?
  2. Whether the Late Lomuna Kolipus was subjected to acts of torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment?
  3. Whether the Respondent is liable?
  4. Whether there are any remedies available to the Complainant?

Orders

  • Complaint allowed.
  • Respondent ordered to pay the Estate of the Late Lomuna Kolipus UGX 55,000,000 as general damages for violation of right to life under Article 22(1) of the 1995 Constitution.
  • The sum of UGX 55,000,000 shall carry interest at 10% per annum from the date of decision until payment in full.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.
  • Either party has the right to appeal to the High Court within 30 days.

Rules and key headnotes

Human Rights — Right to Life — Deprivation by State Agents — Constitutional Protection
The right to life under Article 22(1) of the Constitution is the cornerstone on which all other rights depend, and once a person is in state custody, the state bears full responsibility for protecting that person's right to life; the mere fact that an individual dies in suspicious circumstances while in custody raises an issue as to whether the state has complied with its obligation to protect that person's right to life.
Human Rights — Vicarious Liability — State Responsibility for Acts of Security Forces
The state is vicariously liable under section 3(1)(a) of the Government Proceedings Act for unlawful acts committed by its security agents in the general course and scope of their employment, even where those acts were not specifically authorized by the state.
Human Rights — Jurisdiction — Distinction Between Criminal and Civil Proceedings
Criminal proceedings against state agents who violate human rights do not bar subsequent civil claims for compensation by victims or their estates; criminal and civil proceedings are distinct, serve different purposes, and the fact that perpetrators were criminally convicted does not constitute double jeopardy or deprive the Human Rights Commission Tribunal of jurisdiction to award damages.
Constitutional Law — Fundamental Rights — Right to Life — Exceptions
Article 22(1) of the Constitution permits deprivation of life only in execution of a sentence passed in a fair trial by a competent court for a criminal offence, where the conviction and sentence have been confirmed by the highest appellate court; any other deprivation of life is unlawful and violates the Constitution.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Assessment for Violation of Right to Life
In assessing compensation for violation of the right to life, the tribunal considers that the right to life enshrines one of the basic values of democratic societies, that death is final and irreversible, the circumstances of the death including torture, the deceased's role in society and family, and the impact on dependants.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (15)

  • Esso Standard (U) Ltd v Semu Amanu Opio (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1993)
  • Nestor Machumbi Gasasira v Attorney General (Constitutional Reference No. 17 of 2011)
  • Joseph Zagyenda v Uganda (High Court Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 3 of 2011)
  • Hajji Bumbakali Lukyamuzi v Peter Muhairwe & 10 Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 36 of 1999)
  • Muwonge v Attorney General [1967] EA 17
  • Komakech Charles v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 21 of 2001)
  • Sarah Watsemwa Goseltine & Another v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 675 of 2006)
  • Thunderbolt Technical Services v Apedu Joseph & Kk Security (U) Limited (High Court Civil Suit No. 340 of 2009)
  • Opio Pamena v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. UHRC/FPT/50/2008)
  • Babyesiza Godfrey v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. UHRC/MBA/15/2008)
  • Bagume John v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. UHRC/JJA/10/2007)
  • Kansiime John v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. UHRC/MBR/053/2008)
  • Bashishana Francis v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. UHRC/MBA/117/2005)
  • Nyitho Alex Gelu v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. UHRC/GLU/210/2004)
  • Haruna Byamukama v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. UHRC/130/2007)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Lomise Lina v Attorney General 2018 UGHRC 31 (12 June 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.