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 brought under Article 50 of the Constitution seeking declarations of rights violations and orders for compensation
Decision
Application allowed against the 1st and 3rd to 10th respondents jointly and severally. Two journalists each awarded UGX 75,000,000 in general damages for violations of constitutional rights. 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

Held that UPDF officers violated the constitutional rights to freedom from torture and freedom of the press of two journalists who were assaulted while covering a news event. The Attorney General is vicariously liable and the individual officers personally liable. Each affected journalist awarded UGX 75,000,000 in general damages. Association has locus standi to bring human rights enforcement application on behalf of members under Human Rights Enforcement Act s.3.

Outcome

Application allowed against the 1st and 3rd to 10th respondents jointly and severally. Two journalists each awarded UGX 75,000,000 in general damages for violations of constitutional rights. Application dismissed as against the 2nd respondent.

Facts

On 17 February 2021, Timothy Murungi and Henry Sekanjako, journalists with New Vision, were covering a story about Robert Kyagulanyi presenting a petition to the UN Human Rights Office in Kampala regarding alleged abductions. While taking photographs from outside the UN offices, UPDF officers arrived and assaulted the journalists under the command of Lt. Col. Namanya Napoleone. Both journalists sustained head and body injuries requiring medical treatment. They were beaten with batons, chased, and one journalist bled profusely. The Uganda Journalists Association brought this application on behalf of the injured journalists seeking declarations of rights violations and compensation.

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

  • 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.
  • 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 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.

Rules and key headnotes

Human Rights Enforcement — Locus Standi — Associations Acting for Members
Under the Human Rights Enforcement Act s.3, an association has locus standi to bring an action for enforcement of fundamental rights and freedoms on behalf of one or more of its members without requiring a specific resolution authorising the action, provided the association is registered and exists in law.
Human Rights Enforcement — Technical Compliance — Non-Rejection for Procedural Irregularities
Under the Human Rights Enforcement Act s.6(5), no suit instituted for enforcement of fundamental rights shall be rejected or dismissed merely for failure to comply with any procedure, form or technicality, reflecting the principle that courts must examine substance over form in human rights cases.
Freedom from Torture — Definition and Elements
Torture under the Prevention and Prohibition of Torture Act s.2 includes systematic beating and assault with truncheons where severe physical pain is intentionally inflicted for the purpose of intimidating or coercing a person to refrain from doing any act, such as covering a news event.
Freedom of the Press — Assault on Journalists in Course of Duty
The assault and injury of journalists while covering news stories and taking photographs in the course of their business constitutes an attack on freedom of the press and media guaranteed under Article 29(1)(a) of the Constitution and violates their right to practice their profession.
Vicarious Liability — State Liability for Acts of Security Personnel
The government is vicariously liable for the acts of its security personnel provided the acts were done in the ordinary course of employment, whether the acts were done negligently, wantonly, criminally or unlawfully.
Remedies — Personal Liability of Public Officers
Under the Human Rights Enforcement Act s.10(1), a public officer who individually or in association with others violates 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 in Constitutional Violations
In assessing general damages for constitutional violations involving torture and inhuman treatment, the court considers the facts surrounding the offensive conduct, the physical and psychological pain suffered, and the nature of the rights violated, with damages serving to restore the aggrieved person to the position they would have been in had the wrong not occurred.

Legislation cited (16)

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 (HCCS No. 143 of 1993)
  • Kibimba Rice Ltd v Umar Salim (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.