Wakilii

Natuwera Aaron Isingoma v Attorney General and Others (Miscellaneous Cause 2 of 2024)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 1279 · 2024 Preliminary Objections Partly Dismissed — Merits Reserved AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by Notice of Motion seeking compensation and other remedies for alleged human rights violations under Articles 24, 44(a), 50(1) of the Constitution and the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act
Decision
Matter not finally determined; ruling on merits and on third preliminary objection reserved pending further proceedings

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 applications for human rights violations may properly be brought by Notice of Motion under the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act 2019, and that both the courts and the Uganda Human Rights Commission have concurrent jurisdiction over such matters. The court overruled preliminary objections that the suit should have been brought before the Commission or by ordinary plaint. On the question of the applicant's mental capacity, the court reserved ruling pending clarification of inconsistencies in the record and a potential application for cross-examination.

Outcome

Matter not finally determined; ruling on merits and on third preliminary objection reserved pending further proceedings

Facts

The Applicant, a Uganda Wildlife Authority ranger, alleged that on 25 August 2020, after a UPDF officer lost a gun, the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents engaged traditional healers who declared the gun was in the Applicant's house. The Respondents broke into his home, assaulted him, forced him to drink blood, herbs and meat of an unknown animal, causing head injuries and broken limbs. The Applicant was hospitalised and upon returning home discovered UGX 7,000,000 and his national ID duplicate missing. He attempted to report to police and institute private prosecution without success, then filed this application seeking compensation of UGX 67,000,000, rehabilitation, restitution and public apology. The 1st Respondent raised preliminary objections that the matter should have been brought before the Uganda Human Rights Commission, should have been by ordinary suit, and that the Applicant lacked capacity due to alleged mental illness.

Issues

  1. Whether the suit is properly before the High Court or should have been filed before the Uganda Human Rights Commission.
  2. Whether the application should have been brought by way of ordinary suit rather than Notice of Motion.
  3. Whether the Applicant has the requisite locus standi to bring the application in his own name given allegations of mental unsoundness.

Orders

  • Ruling on the merits of the application reserved pending formal application by the 1st Respondent under Order 19 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules to cross-examine the Applicant.
  • The first preliminary objection (that the suit should have been brought before the Uganda Human Rights Commission) is overruled.
  • The second preliminary objection (that the suit should have been brought by ordinary plaint) is overruled.
  • Ruling on the third preliminary objection (regarding the Applicant's mental capacity and locus standi) is reserved pending clarification of inconsistencies between pleadings and submissions.
  • Costs in the matter to be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Human Rights — Enforcement Procedure — Concurrent Jurisdiction of Courts and Uganda Human Rights Commission
Article 50(1) of the Constitution and the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act confer jurisdiction on the High Court to hear applications for redress of human rights violations, and this jurisdiction is concurrent with that of the Uganda Human Rights Commission; an aggrieved person may choose to seek redress before either forum and is not required to exhaust remedies before the Commission before approaching the courts.
Civil Procedure — Enforcement of Human Rights — Procedure by Notice of Motion
The Human Rights (Enforcement) Act 2019 and the Judicature (Fundamental and Other Human Rights and Freedoms)(Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2019 establish Notice of Motion as the primary procedure by which an applicant may seek redress for human rights violations before the courts, and this procedure is not a bar to proceeding by plaint where the complexity of the matter or the need to call oral evidence so requires.
Human Rights — Remedies — Jurisdiction of High Court to Award Compensation, Restitution, Rehabilitation and Satisfaction
Section 9 of the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act empowers the High Court, where it determines that a fundamental right has been violated, to grant compensation, restitution, rehabilitation and satisfaction orders, and Section 37 of the Judicature Act further empowers the court to grant all remedies legal or equitable to ensure complete determination of matters properly brought before it.
Civil Procedure — Affidavit Evidence — Limitations in Non-Interlocutory Applications
In applications that are not interlocutory in nature, Order 19 Rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules requires that affidavits be confined to facts which the deponent is able to prove of his or her own knowledge; where claims such as damages require evidence beyond the deponent's own knowledge, the appropriateness of proceeding by affidavit becomes questionable, though such defect goes to the merits rather than rendering the application void ab initio.
Civil Procedure — Persons of Unsound Mind — Requirement of Judicial Determination
Order 32 Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules requires that a person be judicially adjudged to be of unsound mind before the procedural protections for persons of unsound mind can apply; the term 'adjudge' means to determine judicially, and a court cannot make such determination solely on the basis of pleadings or submissions without formal inquiry and determination.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Scope and Limitations
A preliminary objection must raise a pure point of law on the assumption that all facts pleaded by the other side are correct, and is based on a commonly accepted set of facts; it cannot be raised if any fact has to be ascertained or if what is sought is the exercise of judicial discretion, and there is no room for ascertainment of facts through affidavit or oral evidence.

Legislation cited (24)

Cases cited (8)

  • Attorney General v Salvatory Abuki and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1998)
  • Eaton Towers Uganda Ltd v AG and Another (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 84 of 2019)
  • Bukenya Church Ambrose v AG (Constitutional Appeal No. 3 of 2011)
  • Zalwango Elivason and Nakalema Miriam v Dorothy Walusimbi and Henry Bijjumuko [2014] UG HCCD 22
  • Charles Harry Twagira v Attorney General, DPP and Kyomukama Sam (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2007)
  • Mugerwa Ahmed & 4 Others v Gemstone International Ltd & 4 Others (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 17 of 2018)
  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd [1969] EA 696
  • Aseru Joyce Ajiu v Anjoyo Agnes (A Patient) (Gulu High Court Circuit Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Natuwera Aaron Isingoma v Attorney General and Others (Miscellaneous Cause 2 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 1279 (4 November 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.