Wakilii

Paul Mugesera Mwirumubi v 2nd Lieutenant Celiano Barijje and Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 208 of 2022)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCD 106 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for enforcement of fundamental rights and freedoms under Article 50 of the Constitution
Decision
Application dismissed with costs to the respondents

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 application alleging unlawful arrest, detention, and torture by state security officers. The court held that the applicant failed to discharge the burden of proof on a balance of probabilities. The applicant produced no police reports, no corroborative witnesses, no medical evidence of injuries, and no evidence of the alleged safe house or forced land transfer. The court found the evidence insufficient to establish that the alleged violations occurred or that the respondents were responsible.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs to the respondents

Facts

The applicant, a managing director of a construction company, alleged that on 2 August 2019 he was arrested by the 1st respondent (a UPDF officer) and other soldiers in connection with a contractual dispute with clients. He claimed he was detained for five days (120 hours) in an ungazetted military safe house in Kyengera, subjected to torture including being chained, forced to sit in polluted water, beaten with rifle butts, and deprived of food and medical treatment for high blood pressure and diabetes. He alleged he was pressured to transfer his residential land title to the clients as a condition for release. The respondents denied all allegations, stating they did not know the applicant, had never arrested or detained him, and that ISO has no power to arrest or detain persons and operates no safe houses.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant's fundamental rights to liberty, freedom of movement, and freedom from torture were violated by the respondents.
  2. Whether the applicant is entitled to the remedies sought.

Orders

  • Application dismissed for lack of substantial evidence.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Fundamental Rights Enforcement — Burden of Proof — Standard of Proof on Balance of Probabilities
In applications for enforcement of fundamental rights under Article 50 of the Constitution, the applicant bears the burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that the alleged violations occurred and that the respondents are responsible for them.
Burden of Proof — Corroboration — Failure to Report to Police
Where an applicant alleges unlawful detention and torture, the failure to file a missing person's report during the alleged detention period, the failure to report the matter to police upon release, and the absence of a police surgeon's medical examination significantly undermine the applicant's case and constitute failure to discharge the evidential burden.
Torture — Medical Evidence — Proof of Injuries
Medical prescriptions issued after alleged torture that do not speak to the alleged injuries or wounds and could relate to any other condition are insufficient to prove allegations of torture.
Right to Liberty — Article 23 — Unlawful Detention Beyond 48 Hours
Article 23 of the Constitution guarantees the right to personal liberty and requires that a person arrested on suspicion of committing a criminal offence must be brought to court within 48 hours. Detention beyond this period in an ungazetted place without being arraigned before court constitutes a violation of the constitutional right to liberty.
Freedom from Torture — Article 24 and Article 44(a) — Non-Derogable Right
The right to freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 24 of the Constitution is a non-derogable right under Article 44(a). There are no exceptional circumstances whatsoever to justify torture.

Legislation cited (15)

Cases cited (5)

  • Bandonda Nicholas v Captain Investments Limited and Another (Civil Suit No. 493 of 2018)
  • Kizza Besigye vs Uganda Aviation Authority
  • Mackay v Attorney General and 3 Others (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 12 of 2018)
  • Simon Kyamanywa vs Attorney General 1999
  • Maruri Venkata and 2 Others v Bank of India (U) Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 804 of 2018)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Paul Mugesera Mwirumubi v 2nd Lieutenant Celiano Barijje and Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 208 of 2022) [2025] UGHCCD 106 (31 July 2025)
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.