Wakilii

Mutazindwa Abdu Noor and Another v Attorney General [2019] UGHRC 55

Tribunal · 2019 Complaint Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Human rights complaint alleging unlawful detention by police officers
Decision
Complaint allowed; complainants awarded general damages for unlawful detention

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 complainants' right to personal liberty under Article 23(4)(b) of the Constitution was violated when they were detained for 9 days on suspicion of theft, exceeding the constitutionally permitted 48 hours before being taken to court. The Tribunal found 7 unlawful days of detention after deducting the 2 lawful days. The Attorney General was held vicariously liable for the actions of police officers. Each complainant was awarded UGX 1,000,000 as general damages.

Outcome

Complaint allowed; complainants awarded general damages for unlawful detention

Facts

On 27 August 2013, the complainants were arrested by police officers attached to Bukomansimbi Police Station on allegations of theft of two goats. They were detained at the police station until 5 September 2013, when they were released. They were re-arrested on 5 October 2013 on the same allegations and detained until 9 October 2013, when they were produced in court. A witness testified that he visited the complainants three times during their detention and confirmed they spent 9 days in custody. The complainants alleged that their detention exceeded the constitutionally permitted 48 hours before being taken to court.

Issues

  1. Whether the Complainants' right to personal liberty was violated?
  2. Whether the Respondent is liable?
  3. Whether the Complainants are entitled to any remedy?

Orders

  • The complaint is allowed.
  • The Respondent is ordered to pay to the 1st Complainant - Mutazindwa Abdu Noor a sum of UGX 1,000,000/- (Uganda Shillings One Million only) as general damages for violation of his right to personal liberty as protected under Article 23(4)(b) of the Constitution.
  • The Respondent is ordered to pay to the 2nd Complainant - Ssempijja Ahmed a sum of UGX 1,000,000/- (Uganda Shillings One Million only) as general damages for violation of his right to personal liberty as protected under Article 23(4)(b) of the Constitution.
  • The said total Sum of UGX 2,000,000/- is to carry interest at 10% until payment in full.

Rules and key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Right to Personal Liberty — Detention Beyond 48 Hours
Article 23(4)(b) of the Constitution guarantees that a person detained or restricted on suspicion of having committed an offence must be taken to court not later than 48 hours from the time of arrest.
Evidence — Oral Evidence — Absence of Documentary Evidence
In the absence of documentary evidence such as a police lock-up register, a tribunal may rely on oral evidence adduced by the complainant and witnesses to determine the duration of detention.
Administrative Law — Vicarious Liability — State Liability for Police Actions
The Attorney General is vicariously liable for the unlawful actions of police officers acting in the course of their duties, including unlawful detention beyond the constitutionally permitted period.
Human Rights — Remedies — General Damages for Unlawful Detention
Where a violation of the right to personal liberty is established, the complainant is entitled to general damages as a remedy under Article 53(2)(c) of the Constitution.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (10)

  • Wamara George v Attorney General (Complaint No. UHRC/FP/67/2005)
  • Issa Wazembe v Attorney General (HCCS No. 154 of 2016)
  • Kyalimpa Godfrey v Attorney General (Complaint No. UHRC/145/2005)
  • Badru Kule v Attorney General (Complaint No. UHRC/219/2003)
  • Ayebazibwe Pidson v Attorney General (Complaint No. UHRC/MBA/31/2009)
  • Mbusa Wilson v Attorney General (Complaint No. UHRC/F/151/2003)
  • Fred Biryomumaisho v Attorney General (Complaint No. UHRC/253/2003)
  • Kaggwa Vicent v Attorney General (HCCS No. 391 of 2014)
  • Joyce Bikyahaga Namata v Attorney General (HCCS No. 228 of 2008)
  • Daudi Katembezi v Attorney General (Complaint No. UHRC/MBA/75/2005)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mutazindwa Abdu Noor and Another v Attorney General 2019 UGHRC 55 (14 November 2019)
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.