Wakilii

Sseviiri Cranimer v The Attorney General and Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 68 of 2024)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCD 73 · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for enforcement of fundamental human rights under Article 50(1) of the Constitution following shooting by police officers
Decision
Application granted with declarations and monetary awards in favour of the Applicant

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

Held that police officers who shot an unarmed and compliant applicant six times at close range violated his non-derogable right to freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 24 of the Constitution, and threatened his right to life under Article 22(1). The Attorney General was held vicariously liable for the violations. The court awarded UGX 62,743,700 in special damages, UGX 300,000,000 in general damages (including future medical expenses for kidney transplant), and interest at 8% per annum.

Outcome

Application granted with declarations and monetary awards in favour of the Applicant

Facts

On 14 November 2022, the applicant was driving when he encountered a police vehicle containing the 5th respondent and a person claiming interest in the applicant's land. A second vehicle with the 2nd and 3rd respondents followed him. The 2nd and 3rd respondents shot at his car tires. When the applicant stopped to submit to authorities, they fired approximately six gunshots at close range while he was seated in his car, unarmed and compliant. Three bullets entered his upper leg and abdomen, causing severe injuries including kidney damage, loss of self-ambulation, and requiring catheterization. The 4th respondent, as DPC of Kasangati where the incident occurred, and the 5th respondent, the senior officer at the scene, failed to arrest the 2nd and 3rd respondents. The applicant required multiple surgeries and ongoing medical treatment, including a recommended kidney transplant not available in Uganda.

Issues

  1. Whether the 2nd and 3rd Respondents' actions of shooting at and injuring the Applicant amounted to a violation of the Applicant's non-derogable right to freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment?
  2. Whether the 2nd and 3rd Respondents' acts of shooting and injuring the Applicant threatened the Applicant's right to life?
  3. Whether the 4th and 5th Respondents' willful and deliberate failure to cause the arrest of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents were unlawful?
  4. Whether the 1st Respondent is vicariously liable for the acts and/or omissions of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th Respondents?
  5. What remedies are available to the Applicant?

Orders

  • Declaration that the 2nd and 3rd Respondents' acts of shooting and injuring the Applicant violated his non-derogable right to freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment guaranteed under Article 24 of the Constitution.
  • Declaration that the 2nd and 3rd Respondents' acts of shooting and injuring the Applicant threatened the Applicant's right to life guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution.
  • Declaration that the 1st Respondent is vicariously liable for the violations of the Applicant's constitutional rights by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents.
  • Special damages awarded in the sum of UGX 62,743,700.
  • General damages awarded in the sum of UGX 300,000,000.
  • Interest on all damages at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of ruling until payment in full.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the Applicant.
  • All awards to be paid by the 1st Respondent in its capacity as employer of the 2nd to 5th Respondents under the principle of vicarious liability.
  • Affidavit in Reply by Nanduttu Cotilda struck out for being incurably defective.

Rules and key headnotes

Fundamental Rights — Freedom from Torture — Use of Excessive Force by Police
The shooting of an unarmed and compliant citizen six times at close range by police officers constitutes a violation of the non-derogable right to freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment guaranteed under Article 24 of the Constitution, which is absolute and cannot be limited under any circumstances.
Fundamental Rights — Right to Life — Threat to Life
A threat to the right to life under Article 22(1) of the Constitution occurs not only upon death but when an individual's ability to live a meaningful and dignified life is taken away by state agents through actions that cause life-threatening injuries and permanent diminishment of quality of life.
Vicarious Liability — State Liability for Police Officers
The Attorney General, representing the State under Article 119(4)(c) of the Constitution, is vicariously liable for violations of constitutional rights committed by police officers in the course of their employment, as reinforced by Section 10(1) of the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act which preserves the State's vicarious liability even where officers are held personally liable.
Affidavit Evidence — Requirements for Valid Affidavits
An affidavit that contravenes Order 19 Rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules by containing statements from a deponent who was not present at the scene, had no direct involvement in the matters complained of, and failed to disclose the source of information is incurably defective and must be struck out, rendering the opposing party's evidence uncontroverted.
General Damages — Assessment in Human Rights Cases
In assessing general damages for violation of constitutional rights involving severe physical injury, the court must consider extreme pain and suffering, permanent loss of amenity, loss of future income, estimated future medical expenses including costs of necessary medical procedures abroad, and the need to restore the victim as far as money can to the position they would have been in but for the wrong.

Legislation cited (26)

Cases cited (18)

  • Attorney General v Salvatore Abuki and Another (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1998)
  • Omonyi Rogers v Attorney General and Another (High Court Civil Suit No. 27 of 2002)
  • Health Equity and Policy Initiative (HEAPI) v Hon. Dr. Jane Ruth Aceng and Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 210 of 2018)
  • Hon. Okupa Ellijah and 2020 Others v Attorney General and 3 Others (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 14 of 2005)
  • Nsereko Musa v Attorney General and 15 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 386 of 2020)
  • Rights Trumpet & 2 Others v AIGP Asan Kasingye & 5 Others
  • Mugisha Felix and Others v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 237 of 2019)
  • Gapco (U) Ltd v A.S. Transporters (U) Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2004)
  • Robert Cuossens v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1999)
  • Kaggwa Vincent v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 391 of 2014)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
  • Wangala Philip v Steel & Tube Industries Ltd (Civil Suit No. 212 of 2018)
  • Necta (U) Ltd and Another v Crane Bank Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 219 of 2013)
  • Obongo v Kisumu Council (1971) EA 91
  • Bank One Limited v Simbamanyo Estates Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 645 of 2020)
  • Bank One Limited v Simbamanyo Estates Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 645 of 2020)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Wanume David [2018] UGCA 9
  • Hajara Nakitto vs Attorney General

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sseviiri Cranimer v The Attorney General and Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 68 of 2024) [2026] UGHCCD 73 (16 March 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.