Wakilii

Mugumya Sam v Chief of Defence Forces and Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 227 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCD 147 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum to compel production of allegedly detained person
Decision
Writ of habeas corpus issued requiring respondents to produce applicant before a competent court within 7 days

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

Held that where a person is allegedly detained by state authorities without being produced before a competent court and no evidence is adduced to show lawful detention, a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum must issue to protect personal liberty. The writ requires production of the detained person before a competent court to test the validity of the detention. The respondents were ordered to produce the applicant within seven days.

Outcome

Writ of habeas corpus issued requiring respondents to produce applicant before a competent court within 7 days

Facts

Mugumya Sam was allegedly arrested by military operatives on 26 August 2025 from Mbarara and detained at Mbuya military detention facility in Kampala. The applicant sought a writ of habeas corpus claiming illegal and arbitrary detention. The respondents, through Lt Col Edgar Musasizi, denied holding the applicant, stating they had cross-checked all gazetted detention facilities and confirmed the applicant was not and had never been in their custody. The applicant's whereabouts remained unknown.

Issues

  1. Whether an order of a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum directing the respondents to produce the body of Mugumya Sam can issue

Orders

  • Application granted.
  • Writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum issued directing the respondents to produce the applicant within 7 days before a competent court from the date of this ruling.
  • No orders as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Personal Liberty — Habeas Corpus — Purpose and Scope
The purpose of a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is to review the legality of an applicant's arrest, imprisonment and detention and to challenge the authority of the prison or jail warden to continue holding the applicant, ensuring release from unlawful detention where detention lacks sufficient cause or evidence or is incommunicado.
Human Rights — Personal Liberty — Protection of Personal Freedom — State Duty
The writ of habeas corpus provides an assurance that personal liberty will always be protected and is open to all citizens under the protection of the State; it is the solemn duty of state authorities to ensure such protection is upheld as enshrined under the Constitution.
Administrative Law — Habeas Corpus — Testing Executive Action — Enforcement
The writ of habeas corpus is a means whereby any citizen may test the action of the executive government no matter how high the position of the person who ordered the detention, and if the writ is not obeyed it can be enforced by attachment for contempt of court of all persons responsible for disobedience.
Civil Procedure — Habeas Corpus — Grant of Writ — Discretion of Court
Where a person is allegedly detained by state authorities and no evidence has been produced as to whether the person is legally detained or was arraigned before a competent court, the court may in its discretion order that the person restrained be released or direct production before a competent court to preserve and protect personal liberty.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (3)

  • In the matter of Sheik Abdul Karim Sentamu & another (Constitutional Reference No. 7 of 1998)
  • Grace Ihingiro & Ors v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 773 of 1995)
  • Kolanzi Sharif v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 276 of 2022)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mugumya Sam v Chief of Defence Forces and Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 227 of 2025) [2025] UGHCCD 147 (5 September 2025)
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.