Wakilii

Sheikh Abdu Rashid Mbazira Buyondo and Higenyi Aramathan Noordin alias Taata Abdulrazak v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application No.23 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHCICD 17 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for declaration that criminal proceedings are a nullity and for acquittal, arising from Criminal Session No. 10 of 2022
Decision
Application dismissed on preliminary objections without determination on merits

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 application on four preliminary objections. First, the DPP/Uganda is not a suable entity in civil proceedings — the Attorney General is the proper party under the Government Proceedings Act and Article 250 of the Constitution. Second, the application is res judicata, as the same human rights violations were heard and determined on merit in Misc. Cause No. 0210 of 2017, where Justice Oguli Oumo granted declarations and compensation. Third, the application seeks retrospective application of the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act 2019 to violations that occurred and were adjudicated in 2017. Fourth, the application constitutes an abuse of court process by seeking to re-litigate matters already conclusively determined.

Outcome

Application dismissed on preliminary objections without determination on merits

Facts

In 2017, the Applicants were arrested and charged with terrorism-related offences. They alleged torture by military and police while in custody at Nalufenya police cells, despite a court order remanding them to Luzira Prison. They were granted bail but immediately re-arrested and charged with aggravated trafficking in children and conspiracy. In Misc. Cause No. 0210 of 2017, Justice Oguli Oumo declared that the Applicants' torture and detention violated their constitutional rights under Articles 21(1), 23(2), 24 and 44, and awarded each UGX 80,000,000 compensation. The Applicants now sought a declaration that their ongoing criminal trial is a nullity and an order for acquittal, relying on Section 11(2) of the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act 2019.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicants are victims of human rights violation.
  2. Whether the current criminal proceedings against the Applicants are a nullity.
  3. Whether the Applicants should be acquitted of all charges brought against them.
  4. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • All preliminary objections raised by the Respondent are upheld.
  • The application is dismissed.
  • Each party shall bear their own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Parties — Proper Party to Sue — Government Proceedings
In civil proceedings seeking enforcement of human rights or claims against the government for acts of its agents, the proper party to sue is the Attorney General under Section 10 of the Government Proceedings Act and Article 250 of the Constitution, not the Director of Public Prosecutions or 'Uganda' as represented by the DPP.
Civil Procedure — Res Judicata — Same Parties and Subject Matter
Where a matter has been heard and finally determined on its merits by a competent court, the doctrine of res judicata bars a subsequent application between the same parties on the same facts seeking the same or similar relief, even if framed under different statutory provisions.
Administrative Law — Retrospective Application of Legislation — Constitutional Prohibition
Article 92 of the Constitution prohibits the retrospective application of legislation. Where a new statute is enacted after a matter has been judiciously determined, that statute cannot be applied retrospectively to alter or re-open the earlier determination unless the statute expressly provides for retrospective effect.
Human Rights — Enforcement — Section 11(2) Human Rights (Enforcement) Act 2019 — Temporal Application
Section 11(2) of the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act 2019, which mandates nullification of criminal proceedings where non-derogable rights have been infringed, cannot be applied retrospectively to violations that occurred and were adjudicated before the Act came into force in 2019.
Civil Procedure — Abuse of Court Process — Multiplicity of Applications
It is an abuse of court process to file a fresh application seeking the same relief on the same facts that have already been heard and determined on merit by a competent court, even if the fresh application is framed under different statutory provisions or seeks additional consequential orders.

Legislation cited (38)

  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 50
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 24
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 44
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 23(2)
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 21(1)
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 250
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 120
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 92
  • Human Rights (Enforcement) Act Cap.12 s.3
  • Human Rights (Enforcement) Act Cap.12 s.4
  • Human Rights (Enforcement) Act Cap.12 s.6(3)
  • Human Rights (Enforcement) Act Cap.12 s.6(5)
  • Human Rights (Enforcement) Act Cap.12 s.10
  • Human Rights (Enforcement) Act Cap.12 s.11(2)
  • Human Rights (Enforcement) Act Cap.12 s.20
  • Judicature Act Cap.16 s.33
  • Judicature (Fundamental and other Human Rights and Freedoms) (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2019 r.3
  • Judicature (Fundamental and other Human Rights and Freedoms) (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2019 r.5(1)(a)
  • Judicature (Fundamental and other Human Rights and Freedoms) (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2019 r.5(1)(b)
  • Judicature (Fundamental and other Human Rights and Freedoms) (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2019 r.6(1)(d)
  • Judicature (Fundamental and other Human Rights and Freedoms) (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2019 r.7(1)
  • Judicature (Fundamental and other Human Rights and Freedoms) (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2019 r.8
  • Judicature (Fundamental and other Human Rights and Freedoms) (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2019 r.9
  • Judicature (Fundamental and other Human Rights and Freedoms) (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2019 r.10
  • Judicature (Fundamental and other Human Rights and Freedoms) (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2019 r.11(a)
  • Judicature (Fundamental and other Human Rights and Freedoms) (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2019 r.11(f)
  • Judicature (Fundamental and other Human Rights and Freedoms) (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2019 r.11(2)
  • Prevention and Prohibition of Torture Act Cap.130 s.2
  • Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act Cap.131 s.5(a)
  • Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act Cap.131 s.3(1)(a)
  • Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act Cap.131 s.3(1)(b)
  • Penal Code Act Cap.128 s.390
  • Government Proceedings Act Cap.287 s.10
  • Government Proceedings Act Cap.287 s.3
  • Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act Cap.289 s.4
  • Civil Procedure Act Cap.282 s.7
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.15 r.2
  • Interpretation Act Cap.2 s.13

Cases cited (17)

  • Paul Wanyolo Mugoyo v Sgt Oumo Joshua (Civil Appeal No. 91 of 2021)
  • Regina v Horseferry Road Magistrates Court, Ex Parte Bennet [1994] AC 42
  • Uganda v K.J & N.I (minors) (HCT-00-CR-0625-2022)
  • Harry Twagira v Attorney General, Director of Public Prosecutions & Another (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2007)
  • Ponsiano Semakulo v Susane Mogalo & Others (1993) KALR 213
  • Orlando Difusi & Others v Zakaria Ono (Civil Appeal No. 08 of 2016)
  • Attorney General & Another v James Mark Kamoga & Another (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2004)
  • Kishan Singh (D) Though L. Rs v Gurpal Sigh & Others (Criminal Appeal No. 1500 of 2010)
  • Uganda v M.I (Juvenile Offender) (HCT-00-CR-JSC-0329 of 2023)
  • Nassaa Wasswa and Another v Uganda Rayon Textiles [1982] HCB 137
  • El Busaidy v Commissioner of Lands and Others [2002] 1 KLR 508
  • Maniraguha Gashumba v Sam Nkudiye (Civil Appeal No. 23 of 2002)
  • Bilhum Charles v Adoge Sally (High Court Civil Suit No. 20 of 2015)
  • Attorney General v Charles Mark Kamoga (Miscellaneous Application No. 1018 of 2015)
  • Onzia Elizabeth v Shaban Fadul (High Court Civil Appeal No. 0019 of 2013)
  • Abdu Rashid Mbazira & 21 Others v Attorney General (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 0210 of 2017)
  • Abdu Rashid Mbazira & 7 Others v Uganda (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 17 of 2021)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sheikh Abdu Rashid Mbazira Buyondo and Higenyi Aramathan Noordin alias Taata Abdulrazak v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application No.23 of 2025) [2025] UGHCICD 17 (27 October 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.