Wakilii

Muhindo & 3 Ors v Attorney General (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE No.127 OF 2016) 2019 UGHCCD 2 (2019-01-25)

High Court · [2019] UGHCCD 2 Application Partly Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for enforcement of constitutional rights seeking declaratory orders regarding eviction procedures
Decision
Application partly granted — court ordered government to develop comprehensive eviction guidelines and report back within seven months

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 the absence of adequate procedures governing evictions is a threat to and can lead to violation of the constitutional rights to life, dignity and property under Articles 22, 24 and 26. The court ordered the Government of Uganda to develop comprehensive guidelines governing land evictions, drawing on UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on Development-Based Evictions, and to report back to court within seven months. The state has a constitutional duty to protect all persons from forced evictions whether by public or private actors through appropriate procedural safeguards including consultation, adequate notice and judicial oversight.

Outcome

Application partly granted — court ordered government to develop comprehensive eviction guidelines and report back within seven months

Facts

The applicants, including residents displaced from various locations across Uganda (Mbuya in Kampala, Rwamutonga in Hoima, and Karamoja), brought a public interest application alleging that forced evictions were being carried out without adequate procedural safeguards. Evidence showed that evictions had occurred with use of force, teargas, demolitions at night, loss of lives and property, and displacement of communities. Examples included the KCCA demolition in Mbuya in July 2016 despite interim orders; evictions in Hoima in August 2014 by private parties with state support; and displacement in Karamoja by mining companies with UPDF involvement. Applicants presented expert evidence that Uganda lacked comprehensive legal guidelines regulating the eviction process before, during and after evictions, leading to systematic human rights violations. The government acknowledged the problem and was developing guidelines, and the Judiciary had issued a 2007 Practice Direction on evictions.

Issues

  1. Whether the application is properly before this court
  2. Whether the absence of adequate procedure governing evictions is a violation of the right to life, right to dignity and the right to property under Articles 22, 24 and 26 of the 1995 Constitution of Uganda and binding international human rights law and standards
  3. Whether the applicants are entitled to the remedies prayed for

Orders

  • A declaration that the absence of adequate procedure governing evictions is a threat to, and can lead to violation of the right to life, right to dignity and the right to property, under Articles 22, 24, and 26 of the 1995 Constitution of Uganda respectively.
  • An order compelling the Government of Uganda to develop comprehensive guidelines governing land evictions before, during and after the fact.
  • The Government to report back to court on progress within seven months from the date of this judgment.
  • The process of developing the Eviction Guidelines should be consultative and participatory, with reference to the UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on Development-Based Evictions and Displacement.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Constitutional Law — State Obligations — Duty to Protect Rights — Absence of Procedural Safeguards as Constitutional Violation
The absence of adequate procedures governing evictions constitutes a threat to and can lead to violation of the constitutional rights to life, dignity and property under Articles 22, 24 and 26 of the Constitution, engaging the state's obligation under Article 20(2) to observe, respect, protect, promote and fulfil fundamental rights and freedoms.
Human Rights — Forced Evictions — State Duty to Protect Against Private Actors
The state has an obligation to protect citizens from forced evictions not only through appropriate legislation and effective enforcement, but also by protecting them from damaging acts perpetrated by private parties, requiring positive action to fulfil obligations under human rights instruments.
Land & Property — Evictions — Procedural Safeguards Required
International human rights law requires that before carrying out any eviction, governments must explore all feasible alternatives to avoid or minimize the use of force, and when evictions are unavoidable, those affected must be afforded procedural guarantees including genuine consultation, adequate notice, availability of information, government presence during eviction, proper identification of persons carrying out eviction, prohibition on evictions in bad weather or at night, and availability of legal remedies and legal aid.
Constitutional Law — Right to Housing — Security of Tenure Regardless of Title
The protection of persons who have settled on public or private land for a considerable period so that they consider the land to be their homes should not be linked to whether they have proprietary interest in the land or are squatters, and the state owes a duty not to allow their forceful eviction without affording them opportunity to seek alternative accommodation.
Administrative Law — Judicial Remedies — Enforcement Orders — Court Power to Order Policy Development
Courts have power under Article 50(1) of the Constitution to grant remedies where rights have been infringed or threatened, including ordering the government to develop comprehensive guidelines to address systemic human rights violations arising from absence of adequate procedures.
Human Rights — Forced Evictions — Judicial Oversight Required
Individuals should not be evicted from their homes nor have their homes demolished by public or private parties without judicial oversight, and such protection should include adequate procedural safeguards; any eviction needs to be suspended as long as a case is pending before any court of law.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (6)

  • Satrose Ayuma & 11 Others vs. Registered Trustees of the Kenya Railways Staff Retirement Benefits Scheme and 3 Others Petition 65 of 2010
  • Social and Economic Rights Action Centre (SERAC) & Another vs Nigeria (2001) AHRLR 60 (ACHPR 2001)
  • Port Elizabeth Municipality vs Various Occupiers (2005) (1) SA 217 (CC) 55
  • Social Economic Rights Centre & Centre for Economic and Social Rights vs Nigeria, Com. No.155/96 (2001)
  • Kepha Omondi Onjuro & others v Attorney General & 5 others [2015] eKLR
  • Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others vs. Grootboom and Others (CCT11/00) [2000] ZACC 19; 2001 (1) SA 46; 2000 (11) BCLR 1169

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Muhindo & 3 Ors Vs Attorney General (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE No.127 OF 2016) 2019 UGHCCD 2 (2019-01-25)
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.