Wakilii

Tukei v Attorney General [2018] UGHRC 25

Tribunal · 2018 Complaint Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Human rights complaint before the Uganda Human Rights Commission Tribunal alleging violation of the deceased's right to life and freedom from torture
Decision
Complaint allowed with compensation awarded to the estate of the deceased for violation of right to life

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 the deceased's right to life under Article 22(1) of the Constitution was violated when police and security operatives arrested him on allegations of illegal gun possession, subjected him to severe beatings and torture, and caused his death in custody. The Respondent failed to provide a plausible explanation for the death. The Respondent is vicariously liable for the actions of its agents who acted within the general course and scope of employment. Compensation awarded to the estate of the deceased.

Outcome

Complaint allowed with compensation awarded to the estate of the deceased for violation of right to life

Facts

On 6 March 2007, the deceased Emokol Sam, aged 25, was arrested by police and security operatives attached to Bukedea Central Police Station on allegations of illegal gun possession. Upon arrest, he was severely beaten with sticks and gun butts by the arresting officers in an attempt to make him confess. The deceased was in apparent good health at the time of arrest. He was taken to Bukedea Police Station where he died in custody from his injuries. A post-mortem examination revealed multiple injuries around the chest cavity and abdominal walls, fractured neck, head injuries, and that the cause of death was excessive bleeding following severe assault. The deceased left behind an eight-year-old daughter. The complainant, his mother, sold three cows to facilitate burial expenses.

Issues

  1. Whether the Late Emokol Sam's right to freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment was violated by the Respondent's agents?
  2. Whether the Late Emokol Sam's right to life was violated by the Respondent's agents?
  3. Whether the Respondent is liable for the violation of the victim's right to life?
  4. Whether there are any remedies available to the Complainant?

Orders

  • Complaint allowed.
  • Respondent ordered to pay to the Estate of the Late Emokol Sam UGX 35,000,000 as general damages for violation of right to life.
  • Respondent ordered to pay to the Estate of the Late Emokol Sam UGX 1,000,000 as burial expenses.
  • Respondent ordered to pay to the Estate of the Late Emokol Sam UGX 7,000,000 as exemplary damages.
  • Total sum of UGX 43,000,000 to carry interest at 10% per annum from date of decision until payment in full.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Right to Life — Death in Police Custody — State Obligation to Account
Where a person dies in the custody of the state, the obligation on the authorities to account for the treatment of that person is particularly stringent, and the state must provide a plausible explanation for the death.
Right to Life — Constitutional Protection — Exceptions
The right to life under Article 22(1) of the Constitution is not absolute and may lawfully be taken only in execution of a death sentence passed by a competent court after a fair trial, or in circumstances warranting use of reasonable and proportionate force in self-defence.
Torture — Death Resulting from Torture in Custody — Violation of Right to Life
Where a person is arrested in apparent good health and dies in custody as a result of torture and beatings inflicted by state agents, the death constitutes an unlawful violation of the right to life under Article 22(1) of the Constitution.
Vicarious Liability — State Liability for Acts of Police and Security Agents
The state is vicariously liable under section 3(1)(a) of the Government Proceedings Act for the tortious acts of police and security operatives committed in the general course and scope of their employment, even where such acts were not authorised by the state.
Standard of Proof — Human Rights Violations — Balance of Probabilities
In human rights complaints before the Uganda Human Rights Commission Tribunal, the standard of proof is on a balance of probabilities as provided under sections 101(1) and 102 of the Evidence Act.
Exemplary Damages — Unlawful Killing by State Agents — Deterrence
Exemplary damages may be awarded in addition to general damages where state agents have acted unconstitutionally in causing death, in order to punish the respondent and deter repetition of such conduct, not to enrich the complainant.
Police Powers — Duty to Respect Human Rights — Constitutional Obligation
Security organisations are obliged under Article 221 of the Constitution and section 4(1)(a) of the Police Act to observe and respect human rights at all times when performing their duties, and have no legal justification to take life in a brutal manner even where a person is arrested on suspicion of a criminal offence.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (36)

  • Alyao Richard v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. UHRC/GLU/956/1998)
  • Miller v Minister of Pensions [1942] 2 All ER 272
  • Annet Namirimu Ndaula v Rev Aloni Mulondo & Anor (High Court Civil Suit No. 27 of 2011)
  • Okello Tom Ibrahim & Another v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. UHRC/G/88/2005)
  • Katantazi Wilson v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. UHRC/JJA/57/2004)
  • Oketha Dafala Valente v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 69 of 2004)
  • Irene Nakimera v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. UHRC/JJA/066/2006)
  • Betty Tibaleka & 2 Ors v Dr. C.R Vincent Karuhanga [1995] KALR 904
  • Nakirya Sarah v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. UHRC/116/1998)
  • Odong Cypriano v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 15 of 2006)
  • African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights v Kenya, application 006/2012, Judgment, 26 May 2017
  • Aksoy v. Turkey, 100/1995/606/694, European Court of Human Rights, 18 December 1996
  • Salman v. Turkey European Court of Human Rights Application No 21986/93
  • Irumba Johnson v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. UHRC/FPT/07/2006)
  • Mariam Nakijjoba v Attorney General & Beatrice Isiagi (UHRC Complaint No. UHRC/446/2001)
  • Irene Nawase & Abas Mayengo v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. UHRC/JJA/75/2004)
  • Muwonge v Attorney General [1967] EA 17
  • Komakech Charles v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 21 of 2001)
  • Sarah Watsemwa Goseltine & Anor v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 675 of 2006)
  • Thunderbolt Technical Services v Apedu Joseph & Kk Security (U) Limited (High Court Civil Suit No. 340 of 2009)
  • Opio Pamena v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. UHRC/FPT/50/2008)
  • Babyesiza Godfrey v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. UHRC/MBA/15/2008)
  • Bagume John v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. UHRC/JJA/10/2007)
  • Kansiime John v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. UHRC/MBR/053/2008)
  • Bashishana Francis v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. UHRC/MBA/117/2005)
  • Nyitho Alex Gelu v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. UHRC/GLU/210/2004)
  • Haruna Byamukama v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. UHRC/130/2007)
  • Edison Oluka v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. UHRC/S/61/2005)
  • Sam Akankwasa v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 202 of 2013)
  • Dr. Nganwa William and Another v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 640 of 2005)
  • Esso Standard (U) Ltd v Semu Amanu Opio (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1993)
  • Matsiko Silagi Bernard and Mbagukire Peter v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 383 of 2002)
  • Nabukenya Margaret v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. UHRC/JJA/103/2004)
  • Okello James v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 574 of 2003)
  • Justine Okot Apire v Attorney General & 2 Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 4 of 1997)
  • Emmanuel Kyoyeta v Emmanuel Mutebi (High Court Civil Suit No. 781 of 2014)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Tukei v Attorney General 2018 UGHRC 25 (15 May 2018)
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.