Wakilii

Ssempebwa v Kampala Capital City Authority (Miscellaneous Cause 146 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCD 43 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application under Articles 50, 24, 44(a), and 45 of the Constitution and Human Rights Enforcement Act seeking orders to remove colonial names from public roads and declarations of human rights violations
Decision
Application dismissed but respondent directed to initiate process for renaming roads in accordance with statutory framework

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 an application seeking removal of colonial-era names from Kampala roads on human rights grounds, holding that the applicant failed to demonstrate actual violation of constitutional rights to dignity or freedom from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The Court found the claim did not meet the objective standard for human rights violations, as it was based on subjective historical distress rather than demonstrable personal harm. However, the Court directed KCCA to initiate a process for renaming roads in accordance with statutory guidelines to promote names exemplifying Ugandan culture, heritage and values.

Outcome

Application dismissed but respondent directed to initiate process for renaming roads in accordance with statutory framework

Facts

The applicant, a historian and human rights activist, filed an application seeking removal of colonial-era names from public roads in Kampala, including names of Lord Lugard, Captain William, Sir Henry Colville, Colonel Ternan, and British monarchs. He argued that retaining these names violated his constitutional rights to dignity and freedom from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment under Articles 24, 44(a) and 45 of the Constitution. The applicant deponed that the names were depressing, distasteful and carried painful memories, constantly offending his dignity and self-worth. Previous petitions in 2019, 2020 and 2021 to Parliament, the President and KCCA requesting removal of these names had yielded no action. The respondent opposed, arguing the application was premature, that the applicant had not followed proper procedures under the Kampala City Road Naming Guidelines 2017, and that the alleged colonial atrocities occurred before the applicant was born. KCCA maintained that naming roads after colonial figures preserved Uganda's varied history and multicultural heritage.

Issues

  1. Whether the application raises issues for constitutional interpretation and enforcement of human rights.
  2. Whether the naming of roads after colonial officials offends the applicant's human rights and freedoms enshrined in Article 24 of the Constitution.
  3. Whether the applicant has authority to remove the offending road names and rename the roads stated in the application.
  4. Whether the applicant is entitled to the remedies sought in the application.

Orders

  • Application dismissed for failing to establish constitutional interpretation or human rights violation issues.
  • Order issued directing the respondent to take administrative, legislative and other measures to enforce rules for renaming of streets, roads and other public places to appropriate names that promote community harmony, unity or which exemplify the culture, heritage and values of the people of Uganda.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Constitutional Interpretation — Distinction from Human Rights Enforcement
For the Constitutional Court to have jurisdiction under Article 137(3), the petition must show on its face that interpretation of a constitutional provision is required; it is not sufficient merely to allege that a constitutional provision has been violated.
Enforcement Procedure — Main Plank Test
The mere fact that a matter involves fundamental human rights does not automatically entitle an applicant to approach the court by human rights enforcement procedure; enforcement of rights must form the main plank of the action and not an accessory claim.
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment — Objective Standard
The determination of whether treatment is cruel, inhuman or degrading under Article 24 of the Constitution necessitates an objective standard and should not be based solely on the subjective feelings of the applicant; the action must go beyond ordinary suffering or humiliation and demonstrate demonstrable harm.
Right to Dignity — Proof of Violation
While an applicant's sentiments regarding historical injustices may be valid, they do not meet the standard of what constitutes violation of the human right to dignity or freedom from torture where the applicant fails to adduce evidence of tortious acts made against him or demonstrable violations caused by the impugned conduct.
Burden of Proof — Human Rights Claims
In civil proceedings alleging violation of constitutional rights, the burden of proof lies upon the applicant to prove on a balance of probabilities that the facts asserted exist and that the alleged violations occurred; courts will not lightly presume violation of rights by public institutions.
Public Authority Powers — Road Naming
Where a public authority has statutory power to name and rename public roads, courts may direct the authority to exercise that power through proper administrative and legislative measures in accordance with applicable guidelines to promote names that exemplify the culture, heritage and values of the people, even where an application for human rights enforcement fails.

Legislation cited (18)

Cases cited (10)

  • Kabagambe v Uganda Electricity Board (Constitutional Petition No. 2 of 1999)
  • Attorney General v Tinyefunza (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Onyango Obbo & Mwenda v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 2002)
  • Mifumi (U) Ltd & 12 Others v Attorney General & Another (Constitutional Petition No. 12 of 2007)
  • Serugo v Kampala City Council & Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 1998)
  • University of Ilorin v Oluwadare (2006) 6-7 SC p 154; (2006) AFWLR (pt. 338) p 747 at 755
  • Twagira v Attorney General & 2 Others (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2007)
  • Abuki v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1998)
  • Nsereko v Attorney General & 15 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 386 of 2020)
  • Venkata & 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.

Ssempebwa v Kampala Capital City Authority (Miscellaneous Cause 146 of 2024) [2025] UGHCCD 43 (26 February 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.