Olima Majid v Attorney General [2018] UGHRC 61
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 Tribunal held that the complainant's right to freedom from torture was violated when CMI operatives arrested him, detained him for 26 days, and beat him with gun butts and batons while demanding information about a phone. The Tribunal found the state vicariously liable for the acts of its agents. The claim for unlawful detention failed due to insufficient evidence proving the exact duration of detention. The complainant was awarded UGX 6,000,000 in compensation for the torture violation.
Outcome
Complaint allowed in part; complainant awarded compensation for torture; claim for unlawful detention dismissed for insufficient evidence.
Facts
On 14 March 2011, Olima Majid was arrested at his home in Kalangala by CMI operatives in the presence of local officials on allegations that his phone had been used to commit a crime. He was taken to CMI offices in Kololo where he was detained for three days, then transferred to Kitintale where he was chained, hanged, and beaten with gun butts and batons for 14 days while being interrogated about the phone. He spent a total of 26 days at CMI before being transferred to Naguru police station to record a statement, then to Kabalagala police station. He was released after 45 days without charge. Witnesses testified that upon release he appeared weak and required walking sticks. He sought medical treatment at Queens Clinic, Kibuli Hospital, and Mulago Hospital. Medical evidence showed he sustained fractures and disc prolapse consistent with blunt force trauma.
Issues
- Whether the Complainant's right of protection from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment was violated.
- Whether the Complainant's right to personal liberty was violated.
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to any remedies.
Orders
- The complaint is allowed in part.
- The Attorney General (Respondent) is ordered to pay to the Complainant, Olima Majid a sum of UGX 6,000,000 as compensation for the violation of his right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
- Interest at the rate of 10% per annum to be paid on the total sum of UGX 6,000,000 calculated from the date of this decision until payment in full.
- Each Party to bear their own costs.
- Either Party may appeal to the High Court of Uganda within 30 days from the date of this decision if not satisfied with the decision of this Tribunal.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (18)
- Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 24
- Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 23(4)
- Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 23(1)
- Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 44(a)
- Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 53(a)
- Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 53(b)
- Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 53(c)
- Evidence Act Cap 6 Section 101(1)
- Evidence Act Cap 6 Section 102
- Police Act Cap 303 Section 25(1)
- Prevention and Prohibition of Torture Act 2012
- Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 Article 5
- Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 Article 8
- International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1976 Article 7
- International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1976 Article 9
- African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights 1981 Article 5
- African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights 1997 Article 6
- Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 1984 Article 1
Cases cited (3)
- Fred Tumuramye v Gerald Bwete & Others (UHRC No. 264 of 1999)
- Fred Kainamura & Ors vs Attorney General & Ors 1994 KALR 92
- Akisoy vs Turkey (1995) 21 EA 573
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.