Wakilii

Namale & Another v Horeb Services Uganda Limited & Another (Miscellaneous Cause 21 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGHCCD 152 · 2024 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Human rights enforcement application by surviving relatives of a deceased migrant worker alleging violations of constitutional rights
Decision
Application partly allowed. Declaration issued that respondents violated deceased's right to life. Damages awarded totalling UGX 250,000,000. Claims for violation of dignity rights and right to information dismissed.

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations rising — 3 citing cases on record, 3 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 a licensed recruitment company bears primary responsibility under the Employment (Recruitment of Ugandan Migrant Workers Abroad) Regulations 2005 for the safety and welfare of externalised workers. The recruitment company violated the deceased migrant worker's right to life by operating off the official Saudi tracking system, preventing communication and monitoring, which contributed to the worker's unexplained death and delayed discovery. General damages of UGX 200,000,000 and exemplary damages of UGX 50,000,000 were awarded. Claims for violation of dignity rights and right to information failed.

Outcome

Application partly allowed. Declaration issued that respondents violated deceased's right to life. Damages awarded totalling UGX 250,000,000. Claims for violation of dignity rights and right to information dismissed.

Facts

Namutamba Milly was externalised to Saudi Arabia as a domestic worker by the 1st respondent recruitment company on 19th August 2018. She maintained communication with her family for about five months before going silent in early 2019. The family approached the respondents for two years seeking information but received no response. In September 2022, the family discovered through independent sources that Milly had died on 21st January 2019 and was buried in Saudi Arabia without family consent or knowledge. The Embassy reported that the burial was illegal and the place of burial was unknown. Evidence showed that all workers externalised by the 1st respondent to the Saudi agency did not appear on the official Saudi tracking system (MUSANED), making them untraceable by Ugandan authorities. The respondents only learned of the death in September 2022, two years and eight months after it occurred. The cause of death was stated as cardiopulmonary arrest.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants have locus standi to bring this application?
  2. Whether the applicants have a cause of action against the respondents?
  3. Whether the respondents infringed on the rights alleged in the application?
  4. Whether the applicants are entitled to the remedies prayed for?

Orders

  • Declaration that the actions of the respondents infringed on Namutamba Milly's right to life.
  • Respondents to pay UGX 200,000,000 as general damages jointly and severally.
  • Respondents to pay UGX 50,000,000 as exemplary damages jointly and severally.
  • Respondents to pay the taxed costs of the application to the applicants.

Rules and key headnotes

Human Rights — Locus Standi — Application for Enforcement of Rights of Deceased Person and Third Parties
Under Article 50(2) of the Constitution and Section 3 of the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act 2019, any person or organisation may bring an action against the violation of another person's or group's human rights without needing to demonstrate direct or sufficient interest, privity, or close relationship with the victim. Locus standi in human rights enforcement is based on the claim of violation and existence of the claimant as a person, not on traditional tests of standing applicable in other areas of law.
Human Rights — Cause of Action — Elements in Human Rights Enforcement Actions
In an application for human rights enforcement under Article 50 of the Constitution and the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act, the traditional elements of a cause of action are not to be considered in the same way as in ordinary civil suits. Provided the action fits within the ambit of Article 50 and the Act, such suffices to disclose a cause of action. An action may be brought without prejudice to any other action with respect to the same matter that is lawfully available.
Employment & Labour — Recruitment of Migrant Workers — Liability of Licensed Recruitment Company
A licensed recruitment company under the Employment (Recruitment of Ugandan Migrant Workers Abroad) Regulations 2005 bears primary responsibility over the safety and welfare of externalised migrant workers. Regulation 7(3)(f) obliges the licensed company to assume full and complete responsibility for all acts of its officials, employees and representatives done in connection with recruitment and placement. This responsibility is not extinguished by the existence of bilateral agreements between states or contracts with foreign recruitment agencies.
Employment & Labour — Migrant Workers — Operating Off Official Tracking System
A recruitment company's decision to externalise migrant workers off the official tracking system (MUSANED in the case of Saudi Arabia) constitutes a grave breach of its obligations under the operating licence and legal framework. Such conduct prevents monitoring by the worker, their family, the recruitment company, and the Ugandan Embassy, and makes the company liable for consequential damage or loss including loss of life where the failure to track contributed to the harm.
Human Rights — Right to Life — Breach by Recruitment Company Through Systemic Failures
A licensed recruitment company violates a migrant worker's right to life under Article 22 of the Constitution where it operates off the official tracking system, has no sources to monitor the worker's safety and welfare, and these systemic failures contribute to the unexplained death of the worker and a delay of over two years in discovering the death. Primary responsibility for the worker's safety lies with the recruitment company as the licensed entity under the regulatory framework.
Human Rights — Right to Dignity and Freedom from Cruel Treatment — Deceased Persons
The right to dignity and freedom from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment under Articles 24 and 44(a) of the Constitution is only available to a living individual. The argument that denying a deceased person a decent burial amounts to a violation of their right to dignity fails because the right does not extend to deceased persons.
Human Rights — Right to Information — Limitation to State Entities
The constitutional right of access to information under Article 41(1) and Section 4 of the Access to Information Act is restricted to information in possession of the State, organs or agencies of the State. Private individuals and entities are not duty bearers under these provisions and allegations of violation of the right to information cannot be sustained against private respondents.

Legislation cited (20)

Cases cited (10)

  • Dima Domnis Poro v Inyani Godfrey & Another (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2016)
  • The Women's Probono Initiative (WPI) & Another v Transcend Agencies International Ltd & Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 190 of 2020)
  • Auto Garage v Motokov No.3 [1971] EA 514
  • Zalwango Margret Nalongo & 2 Others v Ladha Kassam & Co. Ltd (HCMA No. 1088 of 2021)
  • Salim Jamal & 2 Others v Uganda Oxygen Limited & 2 Others [1997] 11 KALR 30
  • Centre for Health, Human Rights and Development (CEHURD) & Another v The Executive Director, Mulago National Referral Hospital & Another (Civil Suit No. 212 of 2013)
  • Hadley v Baxendale (1894) 9 Exch 341
  • Kibimba Rice Ltd v Umar Salim (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1992)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
  • Rookes v Barnard [1946] ALLER 367

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Namale & Another v Horeb Services Uganda Limited & Another (Miscellaneous Cause 21 of 2023) [2024] UGHCCD 152 (7 October 2024)
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.