Wakilii

Ssebuwufu John Mary v Attorney General and Others (Miscellaneous Cause 17 of 2026)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCD 258 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum following alleged abduction
Decision
Application dismissed; no writ issued

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

Application for habeas corpus dismissed where applicant alleged abduction by unidentified persons but failed to adduce evidence connecting the respondents to his disappearance or establishing that he was in their custody, control or authority. Held that suspicion alone cannot constitute proof and that a writ of habeas corpus can only be directed against a person or authority shown to have custody, control or power over the detained person.

Outcome

Application dismissed; no writ issued

Facts

On 14 January 2026, the applicant was allegedly abducted outside the Electoral Commission offices at Ntinda by unidentified men dressed in civilian clothing and balaclavas who emerged from a Toyota Hiace vehicle, seized him, covered his head and bundled him into the vehicle which drove away. The applicant has not been seen since. A friend who witnessed the incident swore an affidavit deposing that efforts to trace the applicant at police stations and military intelligence facilities proved unsuccessful and that the applicant has not been produced before any court, charged with any offence, or otherwise accounted for. The respondents denied having any record of arresting, detaining or taking custody of the applicant and averred that searches of detention facilities under their control found no trace of him.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant has established sufficient grounds for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum against the respondents

Orders

  • Application for a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum dismissed.
  • Each party to bear its own costs given the constitutional character of the proceedings.

Rules and key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Habeas Corpus — Burden of Proof
A writ of habeas corpus is directed against a person or authority alleged to have custody, control or power over another person and can only be issued where there is sufficient evidence connecting the respondent to the detention or establishing that the detained person is within the respondent's custody, possession or authority.
Civil Procedure — Evidence — Burden of Proof in Constitutional Proceedings
Although constitutional proceedings are not constrained by technicalities, the burden of establishing the factual basis of a complaint remains with the party asserting the violation; suspicion alone, however strong, cannot constitute proof and courts determine disputes on evidence rather than conjecture.
Human Rights — Personal Liberty — Right to Habeas Corpus
The right to personal liberty is guaranteed under Article 23(1) of the Constitution and a person arrested upon reasonable suspicion of having committed or being about to commit a criminal offence must be brought before a court within forty-eight hours; the right to an order of habeas corpus is non-derogable under Article 44(d) of the Constitution.
Civil Procedure — Affidavit Evidence — Unchallenged Evidence
Affidavit evidence which remains unchallenged may be accepted as true unless inherently incredible; however, where the issue is whether a respondent has custody of a person, the existence of a denial does not shift the burden of proof which remains upon the applicant to establish facts capable of bringing the respondent within the reach of the writ.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (3)

  • Attorney General v Tinyefuza (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Col (Rtd) Dr Kizza Besigye v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2006)
  • National Housing and Construction Corporation v Mohammed Ali Ranchhod [1972] EA 448

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ssebuwufu John Mary v Attorney General and Others (Miscellaneous Cause 17 of 2026) [2026] UGHCCD 258 (30 June 2026)
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.