Wakilii

The Uganda Journalists Association v The Attorney General & 9 Others (Miscellaneous Cause 64 of 2021)

High Court · [2024] UGHCCD 190 · 2024 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Human rights enforcement application seeking declarations and remedies for alleged violations of constitutional rights during media coverage
Decision
Application allowed. Declarations granted. Damages of UGX 75,000,000 awarded to each of the 2nd and 3rd applicants. Application dismissed as against the 2nd respondent.

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 court held that the assault of two journalists by UPDF officers while they were covering a news story constituted torture, inhuman and degrading treatment, and violated their right to freedom of the press. The Attorney General and the individual military officers were held jointly and severally liable. The court awarded UGX 75,000,000 in general damages to each journalist but declined to order a public apology or guarantees of non-repetition. The court also affirmed that an association may bring human rights enforcement proceedings on behalf of its members without needing a specific resolution or filing in the Constitutional Court.

Outcome

Application allowed. Declarations granted. Damages of UGX 75,000,000 awarded to each of the 2nd and 3rd applicants. Application dismissed as against the 2nd respondent.

Facts

On 17 February 2021, Timothy Murungi and Henry Sekanjako, journalists working for New Vision, were deployed to cover former presidential candidate Robert Kyagulanyi's presentation of a petition to the UN Human Rights Office in Kampala. They were blocked by police from accessing the premises and waited outside. Military police officers, including the 4th to 10th respondents under the command of Lt. Col. Namanya Napoleone (3rd respondent), arrived and ordered the journalists to vacate. The officers assaulted the journalists with batons and tear gas. Both journalists sustained serious injuries—Murungi suffered head injuries with profuse bleeding, while Sekanjako sustained injuries to his right hand and back. Both were rushed to hospital for treatment. Medical documents and photographs evidencing blood-stained clothing and injuries were produced. Both applicants continued to suffer physical and psychological effects including headaches, pain, flashbacks, nightmares and insomnia.

Issues

  1. Whether the named rights of the 2nd and 3rd applicants were violated by the respondents?
  2. Whether the respondents are liable for the violation?
  3. What remedies are available to the applicants?

Orders

  • A declaration that the rights of the 2nd and 3rd applicants to dignity and freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment under Articles 24 and 44(a) of the Constitution were violated by the respondents except the 2nd respondent.
  • A declaration that the rights of the 2nd and 3rd applicants to freedom of the press and the media under Article 29(1)(a) of the Constitution were violated by the respondents except the 2nd respondent.
  • Application dismissed as against the 2nd respondent (Chief of Defence Forces) with no order as to costs.
  • Payment by the respondents (excluding the 2nd respondent) of UGX 75,000,000 as general damages to each of the 2nd and 3rd applicants.
  • Payment by the respondents (excluding the 2nd respondent) of the taxed costs of the application.
  • Application allowed against the 1st, 3rd to 10th respondents jointly and severally.

Rules and key headnotes

Human Rights Enforcement — Locus Standi — Associations Acting for Members
Under Section 3 of the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act 2019, an association acting in the interest of one or more of its members has locus standi to bring human rights enforcement proceedings on behalf of those members without requiring a specific resolution authorizing the filing of the action, provided the association is registered and exists in law.
Human Rights Enforcement — Public Interest Litigation — Jurisdiction
An association bringing human rights enforcement proceedings on behalf of its members need not file the application in the Constitutional Court under Rule 7(2) of the Human Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2019, as Section 3(2) of the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act expressly permits associations to act in the interest of their members in a competent court, which includes the High Court.
Torture and Inhuman Treatment — Definition and Elements
Acts amounting to torture under Section 2 of the Prevention and Prohibition of Torture Act 2012 include systematic beating and assault with batons by public officials that intentionally inflict physical pain for the purpose of intimidating or coercing persons to refrain from performing lawful acts, even where the victims are not formally detained or interrogated.
Freedom of the Press — Protection During News Coverage
The right to freedom of the press and media under Article 29(1)(a) of the Constitution is violated when security personnel assault journalists and inflict bodily injuries while they are covering news stories in the course of their professional duties.
Vicarious Liability — Government Liability for Security Personnel
The Government, through the Attorney General, is vicariously liable for the acts of its security personnel whether those acts are done negligently, wantonly, criminally or unlawfully, provided the acts were done in the ordinary course of their employment.
Personal Liability of Public Officers — Human Rights Violations
Under Section 10(1) of the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act 2019, a public officer who individually or in association with others violates or participates in the violation of a person's rights or freedoms shall be held personally liable for the violation notwithstanding the state being vicariously liable for his or her actions.
General Damages — Assessment for Constitutional Violations
In assessing general damages for constitutional violations involving torture and inhuman treatment, the court considers the physical and psychological pain suffered, the severity of the injuries sustained, the economic inconvenience, and the nature and extent of the continuing effects including headaches, pain, flashbacks, nightmares and insomnia.

Legislation cited (23)

Cases cited (10)

  • Muhindo Morgan v Uganda Communications Commission and Attorney General (HCMC No. 130 of 2021)
  • Bugerere Coffee Growers Ltd v Ssebadduka and Another [1970] 1 EA 147
  • Robert Asiimwe Akanga and Another v Attorney General and 2 Others (HCMA No. 7 & 8 of 2022)
  • Muwonge v Attorney General [1967] EA 17
  • Attorney General v Hajji Adam Farajara [1977] HCB 29
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi [2002] EA 305
  • Kaggwa Vincent v Attorney General (HCCS No. 391 of 2014)
  • Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341
  • Charles Acire v M. Engola (HC Civil Suit No. 143 of 1993)
  • Kibimba Rice Ltd v Umar Salim (SC Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1992)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

The Uganda Journalists Association v The Attorney General & 9 Others (Miscellaneous Cause 64 of 2021) [2024] UGHCCD 190 (13 November 2024)
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.