Wakilii

Nakitto v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause 122 of 2021)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 274 · 2023 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application under Article 50 of the Constitution for enforcement of fundamental rights following the shooting death of applicant's son by state security forces
Decision
Application granted with declaration of constitutional violation and award of compensation

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 held that state security forces violated the constitutional right to life of the applicant's son by shooting him dead during a security crackdown on demonstrations in November 2020. The court found the shooting constituted unlawful and arbitrary deprivation of life under Articles 20(2) and 22 of the Constitution. The state was held vicariously liable for the actions of its security agents. The court awarded UGX 50,000,000 as compensation for the unlawful deprivation of life, applying principles for assessing damages for loss of expectation of life.

Outcome

Application granted with declaration of constitutional violation and award of compensation

Facts

On 19 November 2020, during the 2021 election campaign period, the applicant Hajara Nakitto and her son Ssegawa Amos were returning home from work around midday near Cornerstone Plaza at Clock Tower in Kampala. Security forces (soldiers and/or police) were conducting operations to quell demonstrations and riots. A military police vehicle with officers in army uniforms approached, firing bullets. The applicant's son was shot in the neck by a stray bullet and died shortly after reaching hospital. The applicant witnessed the shooting. The incident occurred in the context of widespread security crackdowns on demonstrations during the politically volatile campaign period. The respondent filed no substantive defence beyond denials.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondent's soldiers/officers' shooting and killing of the Applicant's son violated the deceased's fundamental right to life, contrary to Articles 20(2) and 22 of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995.
  2. Whether the Respondent's soldiers/officers' shooting and killing of the Applicant's son constituted cruel or inhuman or degrading treatment or torture of the Applicant's son contrary to Articles 24 and 44(a) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995.
  3. Whether the Respondent's soldiers/officers' shooting and killing of the Applicant's son in her presence constituted cruel or inhumane or degrading treatment of torture of the Applicant contrary to Articles 24 and 44(a) of the Constitution.
  4. Whether the Respondent's soldiers/officers' shooting and killing of the Applicant's son was a negation of their obligation to protect the deceased's life and human rights and dignity of the Applicant and the Applicant's son.
  5. Whether the Respondent is liable for the actions of the soldiers/military officers.
  6. Whether the Applicant is entitled to the remedies sought.

Orders

  • Declaration that the Respondent's soldiers/officers' shooting and killing of the Applicant's son violated the deceased's fundamental right to life contrary to Articles 20(2) and 22 of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995.
  • The Respondent to pay the Applicant compensation of UGX 50,000,000 for the unlawful deprivation of the life of her son.
  • The Applicant is awarded costs of the application.

Rules and key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Right to Life — Arbitrary Deprivation — State Liability
The right to life under Articles 20(2) and 22 of the Constitution is a basic human right that underpins all other rights. Any action by state agents that results in loss of life, unless legally justified (such as in self-defence or judicial execution after due process), constitutes a clear violation of this right. The state is vicariously liable for arbitrary deprivation of life caused by its security agents.
Human Rights — Right to Life — Burden of Proof — Identification of Perpetrator
In circumstances of state security operations involving indiscriminate shooting during riots or demonstrations, the court will not place a heavy burden on an applicant to identify the specific soldier or police officer who fired the fatal shot. Where the evidence establishes that death resulted from a stray bullet fired by state security forces during their operations, vicarious liability attaches to the state.
Damages & Quantum — Constitutional Violations — Compensation for Deprivation of Life — Assessment Principles
Where infringement of the fundamental right to life is established, the court must give compensatory relief by way of compensation under public law jurisdiction for breach of the state's duty to protect life. Compensation represents a solatium for mental pain, distress, indignity, and death. In assessing damages for loss of expectation of life of a young person, the court considers the uncertainty about the deceased's future prospects, character, and potential happiness, which tends to reduce the award compared to cases involving established adults.
Constitutional Law — Enforcement of Fundamental Rights — Remedies — Adequacy of Compensation
Article 126(2)(c) of the Constitution and section 9(1) of the Human Rights Enforcement Act 2019 require that adequate compensation be awarded to victims of constitutional wrongs. Without reparations to individuals whose constitutional rights have been violated, the obligation to provide an effective remedy is not discharged. The court's duty is to repair the wrong done and give judicial redress for legal injury as a compulsion of judicial conscience.

Legislation cited (22)

Cases cited (5)

  • Wing Commander Danladi Angulu Kwasu Vs Republic of Nigeria (community court of justice of the economic community of East African States)(ECOWAS) holden in Abuja in Nigeria
  • D.K Basu v State of West Bengal [1997] AIR SC 610
  • Akech Rose v Attorney General (HCCS No. 368 of 2018)
  • Odongo Cypriano v Attorney General (HCCS No. 15 of 2006)
  • Uganda Electricity Board v G.W Musoke [1997] HCB 23 (SC)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nakitto v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause 122 of 2021) [2023] UGHCCD 274 (22 September 2023)
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.