Wakilii

Lugolobi Nuhu v Attorney General & 15 Others (Miscellaneous Cause 72 of 2021)

High Court · [2024] UGHCCD 42 · 2024 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Human rights enforcement application seeking declarations and damages for alleged unlawful arrest, detention, and torture
Decision
Application granted with declarations of rights violations and awards of general and exemplary damages plus interest and costs

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 court held that the applicant's arrest and detention for 13 months in ungazetted safe houses operated by ISO, without being informed of reasons or allowed access to relatives, lawyers or medical treatment, violated his constitutional right to personal liberty under Article 23. The torture, beatings, electrocution, blindfolding and being made to sleep in flooded rooms while handcuffed violated his right to freedom from torture under Articles 24 and 44(a). General damages of UGX 100,000,000 and exemplary damages of UGX 50,000,000 were awarded.

Outcome

Application granted with declarations of rights violations and awards of general and exemplary damages plus interest and costs

Facts

On 5 August 2018, the applicant was arrested by plain-clothed security operatives at Nansana and detained at ISO's Kyengera safe house base 1, then transferred to Lwamayuba Island in Kalangala District. He was held for approximately 13 months until 6 September 2019. During detention, he was subjected to beatings, electrocution, blindfolding, made to sleep in flooded rooms while handcuffed and in leg cuffs, held incommunicado and in solitary confinement at times, and forced to do manual labour. He was not informed of reasons for arrest, not allowed contact with relatives or lawyers, and denied medical treatment. The first respondent denied the allegations, stating ISO has no power to arrest or detain and does not operate detention facilities. The second to sixteenth respondents did not file replies or appear despite service.

Issues

  1. Whether the alleged conduct of the Respondents was in violation of the Applicant's rights?
  2. Whether the Applicant is entitled to the remedies claimed?

Orders

  • A declaration that the torture, brutality, humiliation, embarrassment and violence unleashed onto the Applicant during the arrest and while in detention violated his right to freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Articles 24 and 44 of the Constitution.
  • A declaration that the arrest and detention of the Applicant was illegal and violated his right to personal liberty.
  • Payment by the Respondents of UGX 100,000,000 as general damages to the Applicant.
  • Payment by the Respondents of UGX 50,000,000 as exemplary damages to the Applicant.
  • Payment of interest on the damages at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the ruling until payment in full.
  • Payment by the Respondents of the taxed costs of the application.
  • Application allowed against the Respondents jointly and severally.

Rules and key headnotes

Freedom from Torture — Physical and Psychological Torture — Acts Constituting Torture
Torture encompasses both physical acts such as beatings, electrocution, and forced stressful body positions, and psychological acts such as blindfolding, incommunicado detention, and solitary confinement, where severe pain or suffering is intentionally inflicted for purposes including obtaining information, punishment, or intimidation.
Right to Personal Liberty — Unlawful Arrest and Detention — Requirements for Lawful Detention
An arrest and detention violates Article 23 of the Constitution where the detained person is held in an ungazetted place, not informed of reasons for arrest, denied the right to inform next-of-kin, denied access to a lawyer, and denied access to medical treatment.
Non-Derogable Rights — Absolute Nature of Freedom from Torture
The right to freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 24 is non-derogable and absolute according to Article 44(a) of the Constitution.
Vicarious Liability — State Liability for Acts of Security Agents
Where security operatives arrest and detain a person in facilities controlled by a state agency over an extended period, and the state agency fails to rebut evidence that those operatives were its officers or agents, the state agency is vicariously liable for violations of constitutional rights committed by those operatives.
General Damages — Assessment for Human Rights Violations
In assessing general damages for constitutional violations including unlawful detention and torture, the court considers the circumstances of arrest and detention, the physical and psychological pain suffered, the period of detention, loss of livelihood and amenities, and the difficulty of articulating emotional and psychological suffering in monetary terms.
Exemplary Damages — Award Against State Agents for Oppressive Conduct
Exemplary damages are awarded to punish defendants and deter repetition of wrongful acts where state agents act in an oppressive, arbitrary and unconstitutional manner with impunity, demonstrating high-handed conduct and lack of accountability, such as subjecting a person to prolonged unlawful detention and torture.
Affidavit Evidence — Admission of Attached Documents
Where evidence is led by affidavit and the affidavit is admitted and adopted without objection, documents attached to the affidavit are equally admitted as they form part of the depositions; objections to such documents must be raised at the time of hearing to allow the applicant opportunity to correct anomalies, and the opposite party is estopped from raising objections at the submissions stage.

Legislation cited (17)

Cases cited (11)

  • Felix Cuthbert Esoto & Ors v Attorney General (HCMC No. 42 of 2019)
  • Hadley v Baxendale (1894) 9 Exch 341
  • Charles Acire v M. Engola (HC Civil Suit No. 143 of 1993)
  • Kibimba Rice Ltd v Umar Salim (SC Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1992)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
  • Issa Wazembe v Attorney General (HCCS No. 154 of 2016)
  • Agaba Kenneth v Attorney General & Others (HCCS No. 247 of 2016)
  • Tabisa Edisa Nakaziba v Attorney General (HCMC No. 295 of 2018)
  • Butterworth v Butterworth & Englefield [1920] P 126
  • Rookes v Barnard [1946] ALL ER 367
  • Fredrick J. K. Zaabwe v Orient Bank & Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Lugolobi Nuhu v Attorney General & 15 Others (Miscellaneous Cause 72 of 2021) [2024] UGHCCD 42 (13 March 2024)
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.