Wakilii

Mwesigwa Alice v Hon. Jeje Odong and Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause 8 of 2019)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 748 · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application under Section 27(a) of the Inquests Act seeking orders directing the Minister of Internal Affairs to appoint a coroner to inquire into the death of the applicant's husband
Decision
Application granted; inquest ordered to be conducted by the Chief Magistrate of Arua

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 High Court has authority under Section 27(a) of the Inquests Act to order an inquest into a person's death where death occurred in violent or unnatural circumstances, even though it cannot directly order the Minister to appoint a coroner. Where a person dies from gunshot wounds and the circumstances are unclear, an inquest is necessary in the interests of justice to protect the constitutional right to life under Article 22(1). The Court ordered the Chief Magistrate of Arua to conduct the inquest.

Outcome

Application granted; inquest ordered to be conducted by the Chief Magistrate of Arua

Facts

On 13 August 2018, at approximately 6:40 pm, Yasin Kawuma, the applicant's husband and driver for Hon. Kyagulanyi Ssentamu (Bobi Wine), was shot during by-election campaigns for Member of Parliament for Arua Municipality. The medical certificate stated the cause of death as brain injury due to gunshot wounds. The applicant sought orders directing the Minister of Internal Affairs to appoint a coroner to inquire into the death. The respondents argued the application was premature, that the court lacked power to order ministerial appointment of a coroner, and that the applicant failed to exhaust alternative remedies by petitioning the magistrate in Arua.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant is entitled to the orders sought directing the appointment of a coroner to inquire into the death of Yasin Kawuma.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • An inquest into the death of Yasin Kawuma shall be carried out by the Chief Magistrate of Arua Chief Magistrates' Court.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Right to Life — Article 22(1) — Violent or Unnatural Death — Obligation to Investigate
Where a person's right to life under Article 22(1) of the Constitution is taken away in circumstances where death is not due to natural causes and there is no clear explanation of how the incident leading to death occurred, there is a need for an investigation or inquiry into the circumstances leading to the death in the interests of justice, the deceased's family, and the public.
Administrative Law — Inquests — High Court Powers — Section 27(a) Inquests Act — Ordering Inquest vs Directing Ministerial Appointment
Section 27(a) of the Inquests Act empowers the High Court to order an inquest to be held touching the death of any person where it is satisfied that it is necessary or desirable in the interests of justice to do so, but does not authorize the court to order the Minister to appoint a coroner, which is an executive discretion.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Inquests — Purpose and Nature — Fact-Finding Exercise
An inquest is a fact-finding judicial inquiry to establish reliable answers to specific factual questions including the identity of the deceased, the place of death, the time of death, and how the deceased came by their death. It is not a criminal trial or a process to apportion guilt.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Inquests — Triggering Conditions — Violent or Unnatural Death — Gunshot Wounds
Under Section 4(1) of the Inquests Act, where a coroner is credibly informed that a person has died within their jurisdiction and there is reasonable cause to suspect that the person has died a violent or unnatural death, the coroner must examine available records and, if of the opinion that death might have been caused or accelerated by violence or any culpable or negligent conduct of any person, must hold an inquest.
Administrative Law — Judicial Powers — High Court Authority — Ordering Magistrate to Conduct Inquest
Where the High Court finds it just and fair to order an inquest under Section 27(a) of the Inquests Act and Section 37 of the Judicature Act, the court may direct that the inquest be carried out by a magistrate who already holds the office of coroner by operation of law under Section 2 of the Inquests Act.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (4)

  • Kaweesa Farouq v Hon. Jeje Odong and Another (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 276 of 2018)
  • Ndungo Seti and Others v Sekiziyivu Sammy Jones and Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 286 of 2011)
  • R (on the application of Bryan) Versus HM Assistant Coroner for Buckinghamshire [2024] EWHC 26
  • R Versus South London Coroner, Exp. Thompson (1982) 126 SJ 625

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mwesigwa Alice v Hon. Jeje Odong and Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause 8 of 2019) [2026] UGHC 748 (6 July 2026)
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.