Wakilii

No. 64861 PC Atusasiire v ACP Okalany and Others (Miscellaneous Cause 25 of 2021)

High Court · [2024] UGHCCD 10 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Constitutional application seeking declarations for breach of rights to freedom from torture and personal liberty under Articles 20, 24, 23(3), 23(5), 50(1), and 119(4)(c) of the Constitution
Decision
Application dismissed with no relief granted to the applicant

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 dismissed the applicant's constitutional claim alleging torture and violation of personal liberty by police officers. The court held that the applicant failed to discharge the burden of proof on the balance of probabilities regarding the alleged torture, noting inconsistencies in the evidence, delay in reporting the alleged assault, and the questionable credibility of the applicant's account. On personal liberty, the court found the applicant had been duly informed of reasons for detention and that suspects must affirmatively request access to lawyers or family rather than expect police to proactively provide such access.

Outcome

Application dismissed with no relief granted to the applicant

Facts

The applicant, a police officer, alleged that on 11 December 2018 he was arrested and detained at Railways Police Station by the 1st and 2nd respondents, both also police officers. He claimed he was beaten with a pistol causing him to lose a tooth, was forced to sign a document withdrawing assault charges he had filed against a woman named Racheal Nsenge at CPS, and was denied access to a lawyer, relatives, and medical treatment. The respondents denied the allegations, stating the applicant was summoned to Professional Standards Unit regarding professional misconduct, properly informed of reasons, and detained for less than 24 hours. The matter involving Racheal Nsenge was settled through NSSF intervention in July 2019, with the applicant receiving UGX 1,500,000 and voluntarily withdrawing his assault complaint in February 2019. The applicant first complained of the alleged torture in December 2019, over a year after the incident.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant's freedom from cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment was violated by the 1st and 2nd respondents?
  2. Whether the applicant's right to personal liberty was violated by the 1st and 2nd respondents?
  3. Whether the 3rd respondent is vicariously liable for the actions of the 1st and 2nd respondents?
  4. What remedies are available?

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Freedom from Torture — Burden and Standard of Proof
In constitutional claims alleging torture under Article 24 and Article 44(a) of the Constitution, the applicant bears the burden to prove on the balance of probabilities that the treatment met the severity threshold, was intentionally inflicted, and served a prohibited purpose as defined in section 2 of the Prevention and Prohibition of Torture Act 2012.
Credibility and Quality of Evidence — Civil Standard
In civil proceedings, it is the quality rather than quantity of evidence that matters. Evidence must be consistent with surrounding probabilities and capable of satisfying a reasonable mind that the fact alleged is more probable than not. Where evidence is hollow, incredible, or inconsistent with established facts, it fails to discharge the civil burden of proof.
Right to Personal Liberty — Duty to Assert Rights
Under Article 23(5) of the Constitution, suspects in detention have a right to inform their next of kin, lawyer, or medical doctor of their detention. However, the police have no duty to proactively locate and inform these persons without a request from the suspect. It is the duty of the detained person to assert and request the exercise of these rights.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (2)

  • Issa Wazemba v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 154 of 2006)
  • Ireland v United Kingdom (ECHR Application No. 5310/71)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

No. 64861 PC Atusasiire v ACP Okalany and Others (Miscellaneous Cause 25 of 2021) [2024] UGHCCD 10 (12 January 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.