Wakilii

Nakafeero Gorret v Attorney General [2018] UGHRC 40

Tribunal · 2018 Complaint Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Human rights complaint before the Uganda Human Rights Commission Tribunal alleging torture by police officers
Decision
Complaint allowed with award of general damages and interest

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 torture was violated when police officers at Ndejje Police Post beat her with electric wires for approximately two hours to extract a confession regarding alleged theft. The evidence established that the complainant suffered soft tissue injury of 40% and permanent disability of 10%. The Attorney General was held vicariously liable for the actions of police officers acting within the scope of their employment. The Tribunal awarded UGX 8,000,000 as general damages.

Outcome

Complaint allowed with award of general damages and interest

Facts

On 16 April 2011, the complainant was arrested on allegations of stealing UGX 10,000,000 from her husband Kamya Robert. She was detained at Katwe Police Station for one night, then taken to Ndejje Police Post. At Ndejje Police Post, two police officers (Mugerwa and the officer in charge) beat her for approximately two hours using electric wires on her back and thighs to extract a confession. She lost consciousness during the beating and water was poured on her. She attempted to escape but was recaptured and beaten again. She was unable to walk or attend the suspects' parade due to her injuries. She was released on police bond three to four days later and sought medical treatment. Medical examination revealed razor blade lines all over her body measuring 10 x 2 cm, soft tissue injury of 40%, mild depression, and permanent disability of 10%.

Issues

  1. Whether the Complainant's right to freedom from torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment was violated by the Respondent's agent or servant?
  2. Whether there is sufficient evidence to support the alleged violations?
  3. Who is liable for the violations?
  4. What remedies, if any, are available to the Complainant?

Orders

  • The Complaint is allowed.
  • The Respondent is ordered to pay the Complainant a sum of UGX 8,000,000 (Uganda Shillings eight million only) as general damages for the violation of her right to freedom from torture.
  • The above sum shall attract interest at 10% from the date of this decision till payment in full.
  • Either party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Human Rights — Freedom from Torture — Constitutional Protection — Non-Derogable Right
The right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment is protected under Articles 24 and 44(a) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 and is an absolute non-derogable right for which there is no justification for violation.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Human Rights Complaints — Balance of Probabilities
A complainant in human rights proceedings has a legal duty to prove their claim against the respondent on a balance of probabilities notwithstanding that the respondent did not call witnesses or file a defence.
Evidence — Cross-Examination — Waiver of Right — Effect on Testimony
Where a respondent is given opportunity to cross-examine a witness but fails to do so without explanation, the respondent waives their right to cross-examine and the witness's evidence is construed as unchallenged and accepted as the truth.
Human Rights — Torture — Definition — Purpose Requirement
Torture is an act or omission intentionally inflicted on a person for a purpose which causes severe and cruel physical or mental suffering, and torture has a purpose such as the obtaining of information or confession.
Tort Law — Vicarious Liability — State Liability — Employer-Employee Relationship
To establish vicarious liability of the Attorney General, there must be proof of employer-employee relationship and that the perpetrators were acting in the course of employment at the time the alleged violation occurred, and once this is established the burden shifts to the respondent to prove otherwise.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Torture — Assessment Factors
In assessing compensation for violation of the right to freedom from torture, the tribunal must consider the nature and extent of the torture, the gravity and effect of the torture, the fact that freedom from torture is a non-derogable right, and the obligation of the state to take steps to prevent torture.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (19)

  • Byamukama Akim v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. 161 of 2004)
  • Kambugu Peter v Wabinyonyi Sub-County (UHRC Complaint No. 514 of 2004)
  • Ssonko Zubaili v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. 1137 of 2000)
  • John Patrick Besingiza and Another v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. MBR/009 of 2007)
  • Hakizimana Francis v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. CTR/10 of 2009)
  • Byamukama Raymond and Akello Jane v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. MBR/22 of 2008)
  • Zirimu Johnson v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. 344 of 2004)
  • Avi Enterprises Ltd v Orient Bank Limited and Another (High Court Civil Suit No. 147 of 2012)
  • Hon. Okupa Ellijah and 2020 Others v Attorney General and 3 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 14 of 2005)
  • Kamulegeya Eriya v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. CTR/66 of 2009)
  • Emaju Charles and 2 Others v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. SRT/018 of 2007)
  • Wambi Akram Henry v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. JJ/44 of 2008)
  • Joseph Serwadda v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 1422 of 2000)
  • Opio Pamena v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. FPt/50 of 2008)
  • Busingye David v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. FP/13 of 2006)
  • Elalu Medi Sebi v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. SRT/368 of 2003)
  • Odyek Bonny v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. G/124 of 2005)
  • Bindemesese John and Attorney General UHRR [2008 - 2011
  • Chris Kamya v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. 208 of 2005)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nakafeero Gorret v Attorney General 2018 UGHRC 40 (26 March 2018)
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.