Wakilii

Loremo Augustine v Attorney General [2016] UGHRC 34

Tribunal · 2016 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 torture by UPDF soldiers
Decision
Complaint allowed; complainant awarded UGX 5,000,000 compensation with interest at court rate from date of decision until payment in full

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 tortured the complainant by beating and kicking him during a search for illegal firearms, causing severe physical pain and requiring hospitalization for almost a year. The Attorney General was held vicariously liable for the soldiers' actions committed in the course of their employment. The complainant was awarded UGX 5,000,000 as compensation for violation of his constitutional right to freedom from torture under Article 24 of the Constitution.

Outcome

Complaint allowed; complainant awarded UGX 5,000,000 compensation with interest at court rate from date of decision until payment in full

Facts

On 21 December 2007, two armed UPDF soldiers arrested Loremo Augustine at his home in Moroto while he was having supper. The soldiers took him to a kraal where they beat and kicked him around the kidney, ribs, chest and shoulders for approximately 15 minutes. He was then taken to Kawalakoi army detachment barracks where he was ordered to remove his shirt, had jerricans of water poured on him, and was beaten further while soldiers demanded he produce a gun. One soldier named Muyombo slapped him. The complainant was forced to lead soldiers half-naked to another suspect's home. As a result of the beatings, he sustained injuries including broken ribs and hip dislocation, with blood coming from his nostrils. He was hospitalized at Kochoro Health Centre on 24 December 2007 and subsequently treated at Kapedo Mission Health Centre for almost a year, suffering from post-traumatic pain. Medical evidence showed he was diagnosed with post-traumatic pain at multiple visits and had pus drained from swelling on his upper hip and jaw. Three eyewitnesses corroborated the complainant's account of the beating.

Issues

  1. Whether the Complainant's right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment was violated.
  2. Whether the Respondent (Attorney General) is liable for the violations.
  3. Whether there is any remedy due to the Complainant.

Orders

  • The complaint is allowed.
  • The Respondent pays the Complainant a sum of UGX 5,000,000 as compensation for the violation of the Complainant's right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
  • The said sum of UGX 5,000,000 shall attract interest at court rate from the date of decision until payment in full.

Rules and key headnotes

Human Rights — Torture — Definition and Elements — Convention Against Torture
Torture is defined as any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for purposes such as obtaining information or a confession, punishing for an act committed or suspected, or intimidating or coercing, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.
Constitutional Law — Fundamental Rights — Freedom from Torture — Non-Derogable Right
Article 24 of the Constitution absolutely prohibits acts of torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and this right is non-derogable under Article 44 of the Constitution. State agents or servants cannot cite any excuse whatsoever to subject anybody to acts which amount to torture.
Evidence — Medical Evidence — Proof of Assault — Not a Requirement
It is not a requirement of law that every allegation of assault must be proved by medical evidence. Medical evidence is merely advisory and goes to the fact and not law, and the court has discretion to reject it. The court can convict or find liability without medical evidence as long as there is strong direct evidence when the circumstances are so cogent and compelling as to leave no ground for reasonable doubt.
Administrative Law — Vicarious Liability — State Liability for Acts of Servants — Course of Employment
Once it is proved that the servant was an employee of the master, there is a presumption that he was in the course of employment. The burden then lies on the master to prove the contrary. Even if a servant is acting deliberately, wrongfully, negligently or criminally, or for his own benefit, if what he did was in the manner of carrying out what he was employed to carry out, then his acts are those for which the master is to be held liable.
Human Rights — Remedies — Compensation — Purpose of Redress
A victim of human rights violation is entitled to a remedy. Human rights and freedoms would serve no purpose if their violations did not attract redress to the victims. Under Article 53(2) of the Constitution, the Uganda Human Rights Commission may, if satisfied that there has been an infringement of a human right or freedom, order payment of compensation or give any other legal remedy or redress.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (9)

  • Boaz Abungu Wanjala v Registered Trustees of Mengo Hospital (UHRC Complaint No. 620 of 1999)
  • Fred Kainamura & Another v Attorney General [1994] KALR 92
  • Mujuni Appolo v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 1999)
  • Rivell (1950) Cr. App. R 87
  • Matheson 42 Cr. App. R. 145
  • Muwonge v Attorney General [1967] EA 17
  • Jones v Tower Boots Co Ltd [1997] All ER 40B
  • Iwina v Arua Town Council [1997] HCB 28
  • Christopher Ssajabi Nsereko v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. 112 of 1999)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Loremo Augustine v Attorney General 2016 UGHRC 34 (23 October 2016)
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.