Ndyomugyenyi Pius v Attorney General and Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 235 of 2025)
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 granted a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum where the applicant's affidavit established reasonable grounds that he had been unlawfully detained. The court held that particularised facts including date of arrest, description of abductors, and information indicating detention at a specific security facility constituted reasonable grounds under section 34 of the Judicature Act, crossing the threshold required to trigger the protective remedy of habeas corpus.
Outcome
Writ of habeas corpus issued directing respondents to produce the applicant before court
Facts
The applicant, a 22-year-old student on vacation, was arrested on 25 June 2025 from Rukungiri Town Council by unknown men dressed in military fatigue using vehicles known as 'Drone' and a Double Cabin pick-up. He was whisked away to an unknown destination. His family searched various police and security offices in the jurisdiction without success. The applicant's brother later discovered that the applicant was allegedly being held at Defence Intelligence Security Headquarters at Mbuya on alleged offence of cyber harassment. The applicant had not been produced before any court of law. The third respondent denied that the applicant was in detention at DIS Headquarters or any gazetted UPDF detention facility.
Issues
- Whether the Applicant has shown reasonable ground for this court to issue a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum.
Orders
- Application granted.
- Writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum issued to the Attorney General, the Inspector General of Police, and the Director Defence Intelligence Security in respect of Ndyomugyenyi Pius.
- Costs of the application granted to the Applicant.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (9)
- Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 44(d)
- Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 23(9)
- Judicature Act s.33
- Judicature Act s.34
- Judicature Act s.34(a)
- Judicature (Habeas Corpus) Rules r.2
- Judicature (Habeas Corpus) Rules r.3
- Judicature (Habeas Corpus) Rules r.6
- Judicature (Habeas Corpus) Rules r.7
Cases cited (1)
- In the matter of Sheik Abdul Karim Sentamu & Another (Constitutional Reference No. 1 of 1998)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.