Wakilii

Lomise Swaibu and Another v Attorney General [2019] UGHRC 31

Tribunal · 2019 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 life and freedom from torture by UPDF soldiers
Decision
Complaint allowed with damages awarded to the estate of the deceased and to the second complainant for violations of constitutional rights by UPDF soldiers

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 unlawfully shot and killed Lokio Joseph, a minor under 18 years, during a military operation to recover stolen cattle, violating his constitutional right to life under Article 22(1). The soldiers also shot and permanently injured Lomele Lokorikomol, violating his right to freedom from torture under Article 24. The State was held vicariously liable. The Tribunal awarded UGX 35 million general damages and UGX 5 million exemplary damages for the unlawful killing, and UGX 20 million general damages for the torture of the second complainant.

Outcome

Complaint allowed with damages awarded to the estate of the deceased and to the second complainant for violations of constitutional rights by UPDF soldiers

Facts

On 9 December 2009, Lokio Joseph (deceased), a minor under 18 years, went bird and rat hunting with friends including Lomele Lokorikomol near UPDF 405 Brigade headquarters in Kotido District. UPDF soldiers on a tank shot at the group. The deceased was killed instantly and his body was run over by the tank. Lomele Lokorikomol was shot in the right leg, causing permanent disability. The shooting occurred during a UPDF operation to recover cattle allegedly raided by Jie warriors. A letter from the 3rd Division Commander confirmed that UPDF forces engaged warriors and one person identified as Lokio Joseph was killed. Lomele Lokorikomol hid in the bush overnight and was rescued by women collecting firewood the next morning. He spent four months hospitalized and now walks with a limp and cannot perform meaningful work.

Issues

  1. Whether the Late Lokio Joseph's right to life was violated?
  2. Whether Lomele Lokorikomol's right to freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment was violated?
  3. Whether the Respondent is vicariously liable?
  4. Whether there are any remedies available to the Complainants?

Orders

  • The complaint is allowed.
  • The Respondent is ordered to pay to the estate of the Late Lokio Joseph a sum of UGX 35,000,000/= as general damages for the violation of his right to life as protected under Article 23 of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995.
  • The Respondent is ordered to pay the Estate of the Late Lokio Joseph a sum of UGX 5,000,000/= as exemplary damages.
  • The Respondent is ordered to pay to the 2nd Complainant - Lomele Lokorikomol a sum of UGX 20,000,000/= as general damages for the violation of his right to freedom from torture as protected under Article 24 and 44(a) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995.
  • The said total sum of UGX 60,000,000/= shall carry interest at 10% per annum from the date of the decision until payment in full.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Right to Life — Unlawful Deprivation — Arbitrary Killing by State Agents
The right to life under Article 22(1) of the Constitution is the cornerstone on which the realization of all other rights depends, and no person shall be deprived of life intentionally except in execution of a sentence passed in a fair trial by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Use of Force by Security Forces — Proportionality and Necessity
Under UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials 1990, law enforcement officials shall apply non-violent means before resorting to force and firearms, and may use force only if other means remain ineffective, and must minimize damage and injury and preserve human life.
UPDF Duties — Obligation to Respect Human Rights
Article 221 of the Constitution places a duty upon members of the UPDF to observe and respect human rights and freedoms in the performance of their functions, and this duty applies even during security operations in areas of insurgency.
Freedom from Torture — Shooting and Injury by State Agents
The unjustified and intentional shooting and injuring of a person by security forces amounts to torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment prohibited under Article 24 of the Constitution, from which no derogation is permissible under Article 44(a).
Vicarious Liability — State Liability for Acts of Security Forces
The State is vicariously liable for unlawful acts committed by soldiers acting in the course of their employment, and the burden lies on the respondent to prove that the soldiers were not acting in the course of their employment.
General Damages — Unlawful Killing of Minor
In assessing compensation for unlawful deprivation of life, the tribunal considers that the right to life enshrines one of the basic values of democratic societies, that death is final and irreversible, and that a young person's life was cut short with the possibility of developing into a useful citizen.
Exemplary Damages — Oppressive and Arbitrary Conduct
Exemplary damages are awarded where the respondent's agents acted in an oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional manner, such as running over a deceased person's body with a tank after unlawfully shooting them, to discourage acts of impunity.

Legislation cited (23)

Cases cited (30)

  • African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights v Kenya (Application No. 006/2012)
  • Kambayaya Aloysius v Attorney General (UHRC/FPT/05/2010)
  • Mugisa Juma v Attorney General (UHRC/FPT/144/2003)
  • Denis Matsiko v Makindye Sabagabo Sub County (UHRC/137/2004)
  • Tedro Irumba v Attorney General (UHRC/FPT/66/2005)
  • Katantazi Wilson v Attorney General (UHRC/57/2004)
  • Walusimbi Aloysius v Attorney General (UHRC/MSK/12/2011)
  • Pirworth Charles v Attorney General (UHRC/G/83/2006)
  • Nakaggwa Agnes v Attorney General (UHRC/328/2004)
  • Bwanika Godfrey & 3 Others v Uganda (HCCA No. 7 of 2007)
  • Uganda Breweries Ltd v Uganda Railways Corporation [2002] 2 EA 634
  • National Legal Services Authority v Union of India & Others (Civil Petition No. 604 of 2013)
  • Attorney General v Major General Tinyafuza (Constitutional Petition No. 1 of 1999)
  • Baluku Steven v Attorney General (UHRC/FPT/123/2003)
  • Businge David v Attorney General & Asiimwe Yasin (UHRC/FPT/13/2006)
  • Akot Catherine v Attorney General (HCCA No. 2 of 2017)
  • Apollo Amon v Attorney General (UHRC/2006)
  • Nyana Caroline v Attorney General (UHRC/G/176/2004)
  • Smolen v Lubowa (CACA No. 16 of 1975)
  • Nakalema v Michellstanos (1956) 22 EACA 172
  • Akugizibwe Amon v Attorney General (UHRC/47/2006)
  • Bagume John v Attorney General (UHRC/JJA/10/2007)
  • Kansiime John v Attorney General (UHRC/MBR/053/2008)
  • Bashishana Francis v Attorney General (UHRC/MBA/117/2005)
  • Nyitho Alex Gelu v Attorney General (UHRC/GLU/210/2004)
  • Haruna Byamukama v Attorney General (UHRC/130/2007)
  • Edison Oluka v Attorney General (UHRC/S/61/2005)
  • Irene Nakimera v Attorney General (UHRC/JJA/66/2006)
  • Odong Cypriano v Attorney General (HCCS No. 15 of 2006)
  • Esso Standard (U) Ltd v Semu Amanu Opio (SCCA No. 3 of 1993)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Lomise Swaibu and Another v Attorney General 2019 UGHRC 31 (24 October 2019)
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.