Wakilii

Ozelle Jackson and 3 Others v Uganda [2019] UGHRC 67

Tribunal · 2019 Complaint Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Human rights complaint before the Uganda Human Rights Commission Tribunal alleging torture by UPDF soldiers
Decision
Complainants awarded general damages for torture by state agents; Attorney General held vicariously liable

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 UPDF soldiers attached to Spencon Services Ltd violated the complainants' constitutional right to freedom from torture under Article 24 when they beat and assaulted them while searching for allegedly stolen construction equipment. The Attorney General was found vicariously liable for the acts of its agents acting in the course of employment. The complainants were awarded general damages totalling UGX 17,000,000.

Outcome

Complainants awarded general damages for torture by state agents; Attorney General held vicariously liable

Facts

On 19 March 2012 at around 2:00 am, four complainants residing in Ngia Village, Zombo District were at home sleeping when armed UPDF soldiers attached to Spencon Services Ltd arrived. The soldiers called out the first complainant, ordered him to sit, and began interrogating him about the whereabouts of a machine used in construction of Nyagak Dam allegedly in his possession. When he denied possession, the soldiers beat and slapped him, stepped on him, and hit him on the head with a torch. The soldiers searched his house, then questioned and assaulted his wife (2nd complainant). They tied the first complainant's manhood, bound him and his wife together by the hands, and took them to their daughters' houses where the 3rd and 4th complainants were also beaten. The 3rd complainant was beaten with sticks on her stomach which had been previously operated on. The complainants later reported to police and obtained medical forms.

Issues

  1. Whether the Complainants' right to freedom from torture, cruel or degrading treatment or punishment was violated by the Respondent's agents?
  2. Whether the Respondent is vicariously liable?
  3. Whether there are any remedies available to the Complainants?

Orders

  • Complaint allowed.
  • Respondent ordered to pay 1st Complainant Ozelle Jackson UGX 5,000,000 as general damages for violation of right to freedom from torture.
  • Respondent ordered to pay 2nd Complainant Ongera Grace UGX 4,000,000 as general damages for violation of right to freedom from torture.
  • Respondent ordered to pay 3rd Complainant Biwinjere Jeniffer UGX 4,000,000 as general damages for violation of right to freedom from torture.
  • Respondent ordered to pay 4th Complainant Jawayambe Stephen UGX 4,000,000 as general damages for violation of right to freedom from torture.
  • Total sum of UGX 17,000,000 to carry interest at 10% per annum from date of decision until payment in full.
  • Either party has right to appeal to High Court within 30 days.

Rules and key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Right to Freedom from Torture — Article 24 Constitution — Non-Derogable Right
The prohibition on torture and other forms of ill treatment enshrined in Article 24 of the Constitution is a non-derogable right under Article 44(a), meaning no derogation from its provisions can be made under any circumstances.
Human Rights — Torture — Definition and Elements — Deliberate Inhuman Treatment
Torture requires deliberate inhuman treatment causing very serious and cruel suffering, whereas inhuman treatment involves infliction of intense physical and mental suffering reaching a minimum level of severity, and degrading treatment requires ill treatment designed to arouse feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliation and debasing the victim.
Evidence — Cross-Examination — Failure to Cross-Examine — Acceptance of Evidence
Where a party fails to cross-examine a witness on a particular important point, the court may infer that the cross-examining party accepts the witness's evidence, and it will be difficult to suggest that the evidence should be rejected.
Tort Law — Vicarious Liability — State Liability for Acts of Agents — Course of Employment
The Attorney General is vicariously liable for acts and omissions of state agents acting in the course of their employment where no evidence is adduced that the agents were acting on a frolic of their own.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Torture by State Agents — Assessment
Victims of torture by state agents are entitled to compensation in the form of general damages under Article 53(2)(b) and (c) of the Constitution and Article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (7)

  • Attorney General v Salvatori Abuki (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1998)
  • Mohammed Draku v Attorney General & Kajoingi Andrew (UHRC Complaint No. G/88/2005)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Stephen Mbosi (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 26 of 1995)
  • James Serubiri & Fred Musisi v. Uganda, Criminal Appeal No. 5 of
  • Annet Zimbiha v Attorney General (HCCS No. 109 of 2011)
  • Nsereko v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. 112 of 1999)
  • Murumba Thedius v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. 258 of 2003)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ozelle Jackson and 3 Others v Uganda 2019 UGHRC 67 (18 February 2019)
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.