Musasizi Swaibu and Another v Attorney General [2019] UGHRC 35
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 the complainants' right to personal liberty under Article 23(4)(b) of the Constitution was violated when they were detained for 18 days instead of the constitutionally mandated 48 hours before being produced in court. While their initial arrest on suspicion of murder was lawful, detention beyond 48 hours was unconstitutional. The Attorney General was found vicariously liable for the acts of police officers acting in the course of their employment. Each complainant was awarded UGX 3,200,000 in general damages for the 16 days of unlawful detention.
Outcome
Complaint allowed; complainants awarded general damages for unlawful detention
Facts
On 20 February 2014, three complainants were arrested by police officers from Kakumiro Police Station on allegations of murdering one Mugarura Justus. The first complainant was arrested at around 8:00 am at Butengya Trading Centre, while the second and third complainants were arrested at around 9:00 am from Butenje Town Council and Butengye Trading Centre respectively. Upon arrest, they were detained at Kakumiro Police Station until 23 February 2014, when they were transferred to Kibaale Police Station. They remained in detention at Kibaale until 20 March 2014, when they were finally produced in court. Lock-up registers from both police stations confirmed the complainants were detained for a total of 18 days before being brought before a court.
Issues
- Whether the Complainants' right to personal liberty was violated by the Respondent's agents?
- Whether the Respondent is vicariously liable?
- Whether there are any remedies available to the Complainants?
Orders
- The complaint is allowed.
- The Respondent is ordered to pay to the 1st Complainant - Musasizi Swaibu a sum of UGX 3,200,000/-.
- The Respondent is ordered to pay to the 2nd Complainant - Musinguzi Feredi a sum of UGX 3,200,000/-.
- The Respondent is ordered to pay to the 3rd Complainant - Tukwasibwe Calist a sum of UGX 3,200,000/-.
- The said total sum of UGX 9,600,000/- shall carry interest at 10% per annum calculated from the date of the decision until payment in full.
- Either party not satisfied with this decision has the right to appeal to the High Court of Uganda within 30 days from the date hereof.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (9)
- Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 23(4)(b)
- Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 23(c)
- Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 53(2)(b)
- Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 53(2)(c)
- Police Act Cap 303 s.25(1)
- Police Act s.23
- African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 6
- Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 Article 6
- International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 Article 9
Cases cited (9)
- Iwolit Dismass v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. J/54/2003)
- Tusiimwe Bruce v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. FP/25/2005)
- Byaruhanga Charles v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. 09/2007)
- Mbusa Wilson v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. F/151/2003)
- Uganda v Robert Sekabira and 10 Others (High Court Criminal Case No. 85 of 2010)
- Omonyi Rogers v Attorney General and Uganda Revenue Authority (High Court Civil Suit No. 27 of 2002)
- James Okello and Cissy Okello v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. 49/2003)
- Nsereko v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. 112/1999)
- Murumba Thedius v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. 258/2003)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.