Nagujja Margaret v Attorney General and Another [2018] UGHRC 63
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 complainant's right to freedom from cruel treatment under Articles 24 and 44 of the Constitution was violated by the 1st and 2nd Respondents during her arrest following a violent community meeting. The 2nd Respondent was found personally liable for manhandling the complainant during arrest, evidenced by medical examination showing stomach tenderness and bodily pain. The 3rd Respondent was not found liable as no evidence pinpointed her involvement in the violation. General damages totalling UGX 3,300,000 were awarded.
Outcome
Complaint allowed with damages awarded to complainant for violation of constitutional right to freedom from cruel treatment
Facts
On 17 November 2013, a community sensitization meeting was conducted by police in Nsumba LC I village, Sembabule District, following a murder. During the meeting, participants became violent and attacked police officers. The complainant, who had locked herself in her house during the chaos, emerged to look for her children. Upon stepping outside, she was arrested by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents. The complainant alleged she was beaten with a baton during arrest, dragged to a police patrol car, and taken to Sembabule Police Station. She was subsequently taken to court and remanded for two weeks. Medical examination on 30 November 2013 revealed stomach tenderness and bodily pain. The respondents denied beating the complainant, stating she was arrested as a ringleader who had incited violence and stoned the police vehicle, and that she was not beaten during arrest.
Issues
- Whether the Complainant's right to freedom from inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment was violated?
- Whether the Respondents are liable?
- Whether there is any remedy available to the Complainant?
Orders
- The Complaint is allowed.
- The 1st Respondent is ordered to pay the Complainant a sum of UGX 3,000,000 as general damages for the violation of her right to freedom from cruel treatment.
- The 2nd Respondent is ordered to pay the Complainant a sum of UGX 300,000 as general damages for the violation of her right to freedom from cruel treatment.
- The above total shall attract interest at Court rate from the date of this decision till payment in full.
- Either party shall bear its own costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (8)
- Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 24
- Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 44
- Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 53(2)
- Prevention and Prohibition of Torture Act 2012 s.2
- Prevention and Prohibition of Torture Act 2012 s.8(1)(a)
- Prevention and Prohibition of Torture Act 2012 s.8(1)(b)
- Evidence Act Cap 6 s.100-102
- Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 Article 8
Cases cited (3)
- Babyesiza Godfrey v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. MBA/015/2008)
- Birigwenkya Godfrey v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. 175/2007)
- Kiwalabye Kyaterekera Bonny v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. MSK/65/2011)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.