Wakilii

Tongon Paul and Another v Uganda [2016] UGHRC 35

Tribunal · 2016 Complaint Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Human rights complaint alleging torture and unlawful detention by UPDF soldiers during cordon and search operation
Decision
Complaint allowed with compensation awarded to both complainants for torture; first complainant also awarded compensation for unlawful detention

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 Tribunal held that UPDF soldiers violated both complainants' right to freedom from torture during a cordon and search operation on 26 May 2009, where they were beaten causing severe injuries. The first complainant's right to personal liberty was also violated through unlawful detention for four days at Losilang barracks. The second complainant's detention claim failed as medical evidence showed he was unconscious and taken to a health centre, not detained. Compensation of UGX 5,000,000 was awarded to the first complainant and UGX 4,000,000 to the second complainant.

Outcome

Complaint allowed with compensation awarded to both complainants for torture; first complainant also awarded compensation for unlawful detention

Facts

On 26 May 2009, UPDF soldiers conducted a cordon and search operation for guns in the complainants' village. Tongon Paul (first complainant) was beaten by soldiers, sustaining a broken arm and injuries to his knees, ankles and waist. He was taken to Losilang army barracks where he was further beaten for four days before release. Aleper John (second complainant) was beaten by soldiers, sustaining injuries including a broken rib, and blood oozing from his ears, mouth and eyes. Medical evidence showed the first complainant sought treatment on 30 May 2009 with fractures and dislocations. The second complainant was brought unconscious to the health centre on 27 May 2009 with a broken rib, wounds all over his body, and vomiting blood. Two witnesses corroborated that soldiers beat multiple villagers for about an hour while searching for guns, then detained them at the barracks. The respondent did not present any defence evidence.

Issues

  1. Whether the Complainants' right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment was violated by the Respondent's agents.
  2. Whether the Complainants' right to liberty was violated by the Respondent's agents.
  3. Whether there is any remedy due to the Complainants.

Orders

  • The complaint is allowed.
  • The Respondent shall pay the 1st Complainant Tongon Paul a total sum of UGX 5,000,000 (Uganda Shillings five million) broken down as: (a) UGX 4,000,000 as compensation for the violation of his right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; (b) UGX 1,000,000 as compensation for the violation of his right to personal liberty.
  • The Respondent shall pay the 2nd Complainant Aleper John a sum of UGX 4,000,000 (Uganda Shillings four million) as compensation for the violation of his right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
  • The total sum of UGX 9,000,000 (Uganda Shillings nine million) shall carry interest at court rate from the date hereof until payment in full.
  • Either party dissatisfied with this decision may appeal to the High Court of Uganda within 30 days from the date hereof.

Rules and key headnotes

Human Rights — Torture — Definition and Elements — Four-Part Test under Convention Against Torture
An action constitutes torture if: (a) it caused the victim severe pain and suffering, whether physical or mental; (b) such pain and suffering was intentionally inflicted; (c) the purpose was to obtain information or confession, or to punish, intimidate or coerce the victim, or for any reason based on discrimination; and (d) the act was carried out by, or at the instigation of, or with the consent of, a public official or person acting in an official capacity.
Human Rights — Torture — Non-Derogable Right — Absolute Prohibition
The right to freedom from torture is absolute and non-derogable under the Constitution of Uganda Article 44(a) and the Convention Against Torture, which provides that no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war, threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as justification for torture.
Human Rights — Personal Liberty — Unlawful Detention — Burden of Proof
The basis for an action of unlawful arrest and detention is the mere imprisonment itself. The complainant must prove that he was arrested and detained, whereupon the burden shifts to the respondent to justify the action.
Human Rights — Personal Liberty — Military Detention — Lawful Places of Detention
A person arrested, restricted or detained shall be kept in a place authorised by law under Constitution Article 23(2). Detention at a military barracks is unlawful where the detainee does not fall within the categories specified under the Uganda People's Defence Forces Act Cap 307 s.15(1).
Constitutional Law — Remedies — Compensation for Human Rights Violations — Quantum of Damages
Under Constitution Article 53(2), the Uganda Human Rights Commission may, if satisfied that there has been an infringement of a human right or freedom, order payment of compensation or give any other legal remedy or redress. A person unlawfully detained is entitled to compensation under Article 23(7).
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Failure to Present Defence — Effect on Complainant's Evidence
Where the complainant closes his case and the respondent offers no evidence, the complainant's evidence is not controverted and must be accepted as the truth, provided the complainant has discharged the evidential burden under the Evidence Act s.101 and s.102.

Legislation cited (18)

Cases cited (4)

  • George Assimwe v Attorney General (HCCS No. 481 of 1997)
  • David Livingstone Oculi vs. Attorney General UHRC (2003-2007)
  • Prof. Syed Sufderal Huq v Attorney General (1995) 11 KALR 82
  • David Kironde v Mukono District Administration & Attorney General (HCCS No. 486 of 1993)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Tongon Paul and Another v Uganda 2016 UGHRC 35 (25 October 2016)
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.