Wakilii

Robert Lugya Kayingo v Attorney General and Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 191 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCD 166 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for habeas corpus ad subjiciendum brought ex parte under Articles 44(d) and 23(9) of the Constitution and Section 38 of the Judicature Act
Decision
Writ of habeas corpus issued directing state security agencies to produce the Applicant before court

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 directing state security agencies to produce Robert Lugya Kayingo, who was detained at Entebbe Airport by unidentified security personnel and held incommunicado for more than 48 hours without charge or arraignment. The court held that where a person's whereabouts are unknown but they are suspected of being detained by government security agencies, the writ must issue to test the legality of detention and protect personal liberty under Article 23(9) of the Constitution.

Outcome

Writ of habeas corpus issued directing state security agencies to produce the Applicant before court

Facts

On 17 July 2025, Robert Lugya Kayingo arrived at Entebbe International Airport. At approximately 9:35 am, he informed his sister that he was being detained at the airport immigration department for reasons unknown to him. His sister rushed to the airport and was told by an Aviation Security officer that the Applicant was under state security and that the security agency would either bring him home or call her to pick him up, but they did not specify which security organ was responsible or when they would release him. She followed up with Entebbe Airport police at 5:35 pm, but the Applicant was not in their custody. She was advised to follow up with the Directorate of Intelligence and Security. The Applicant was arrested without being given an opportunity to speak to a lawyer or having the purpose of his arrest explained to him. He remained in detention for more than 48 hours without trial or arraignment before court.

Issues

  1. Whether an order of a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum, directing the Respondents to produce the body of Robert Lugya Kayingo can issue.

Orders

  • An order that a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum hereby issues against the Respondents: The Attorney General of Uganda, The Inspector General of Police, the Chief of Defence Forces, Uganda Peoples Defence Forces and the Directorate of Intelligence and Security (DIS).
  • That the body of the Applicant, Robert Lugya Kayingo be brought before this Honourable Court.
  • The Costs of this Application is awarded to the Applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Personal Liberty — Right to Habeas Corpus — Inviolability
The right to an order of habeas corpus under Article 23(9) of the Constitution is inviolable and shall not be suspended, providing an assurance that personal freedom will always be protected.
Human Rights — Personal Liberty — Unlawful Detention — Detention Incommunicado
A writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is used to review the legality of arrest, imprisonment and detention and to challenge the authority to continue holding a person. It ensures that a prisoner can be released from unlawful detention, including detention lacking sufficient cause or evidence or detention incommunicado.
Administrative Law — Habeas Corpus — Scope of Writ — Testing Executive Action
The writ of habeas corpus is a means whereby the humblest citizen may test the action of the executive government no matter how high the position of the person who ordered the detention. If the writ is not obeyed, it can be enforced by attachment for contempt of court of all persons responsible for disobedience.
Civil Procedure — Habeas Corpus — Grant of Writ — Suspected State Detention
Where a person's whereabouts are unknown but they are suspectedly being detained by a government security agency, it is only fair that the same ought to be ascertained and inquired into by the Attorney General, and a writ of habeas corpus should issue as it is open to all citizens under the protection of the State.
Civil Procedure — Habeas Corpus — Court's Discretion — Release Order
Under Section 34 of the Judicature Act and Rule 6 of the Judicature (Habeas Corpus) Rules, the court hearing an application for a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum may, in its discretion, order that the person restrained be released, and that order shall be a sufficient warrant to the officer in charge for the release of the person under restraint and to produce him before a competent court if there is any preferable charge.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (3)

  • In the matter of Sheikh Abdul Karim Sentamu & another (Constitutional Reference No. 1 of 1998)
  • Grace Ibingira & Ors v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 113 of 1966)
  • Kolonzi Sharif v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 276 of 2022)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Robert Lugya Kayingo v Attorney General and Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 191 of 2025) [2025] UGHCCD 166 (1 August 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.