Wakilii

Twine v Attorney General (Misc Cause 3 of 2024)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 478 · 2024 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Human rights enforcement application under the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act 2019 seeking declarations and damages for assault by a UPDF soldier
Decision
Application granted. Declarations issued in favour of the Applicant. Damages awarded totalling UGX 340,000,000 plus costs.

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 assault by a UPDF soldier on the applicant causing loss of his left eye violated his constitutional right to freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 24 of the Constitution. The Government is vicariously liable for the tortious acts of its agents committed in the course of employment. General damages of UGX 300,000,000 and exemplary damages of UGX 40,000,000 awarded.

Outcome

Application granted. Declarations issued in favour of the Applicant. Damages awarded totalling UGX 340,000,000 plus costs.

Facts

On 14 August 2023 at around 11am, Private Ngabire Benjamin, a UPDF soldier, severely assaulted the applicant Twine Emmanuel with a stick, panga and benet, rendering him unconscious. The assault caused severe injuries including the total loss of the applicant's left eye. The applicant was rushed to St. Henry Medical Centre, Hoima for treatment. Medical evidence including photographs, receipts and prescriptions documented the injuries and treatment. The respondent Attorney General did not contest the application, filing no affidavit in reply despite being duly served.

Issues

  1. Whether the assault on the Applicant on the 14th of December 2023 by Private Ngabire Benjamin violated his fundamental human right of freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
  2. Whether the Respondent is vicariously liable for the actions of Private Ngabire Benjamin.
  3. What remedies are available to the Applicant/Victim.

Orders

  • Declaration issued that the assault by Private Ngabire Benjamin violated the Applicant's right to freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
  • The Respondent is vicariously liable for the actions of Private Ngabire Benjamin.
  • General damages of UGX 300,000,000 (Three Hundred Million Uganda Shillings) awarded to the Applicant.
  • Exemplary damages of UGX 40,000,000 (Forty Million Uganda Shillings) awarded to the Applicant.
  • Costs of the Application awarded to the Applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Constitutional Rights — Freedom from Torture — Assault by State Agent Causing Loss of Eye
An assault by a soldier using a stick, panga and benet causing loss of an eye constitutes torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article 24 of the Constitution, which is a non-derogable right under Article 44(a).
Vicarious Liability — Government Liability — Torts by Soldiers in Course of Employment
Under the Government Proceedings Act Cap 77 s.3(1), the Government is vicariously liable for torts committed by its servants or agents acting within the scope of their employment, even where the act is done contrary to orders, wantonly, negligently or criminally, if it is a manner of carrying out what the employee was employed to do.
Burden of Proof — Human Rights Violations — Standard of Proof
In a human rights enforcement application under the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act 2019, the applicant bears the burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that the facts asserted exist and that the alleged rights violations occurred.
General Damages — Assessment — Torture Causing Loss of Eye
General damages for torture resulting in loss of an eye must compensate not only for the physical injury but also for emotional suffering, pain, mental anguish, humiliation and loss of amenity. The court retains discretion to assess damages in a manner that does justice to the parties.
Exemplary Damages — Government Misconduct — Oppressive Conduct by State Agents
Exemplary damages are awarded where there has been oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional action by servants of the government, serving both to punish the defendant and deter repetition of the wrongful act, but must not be used to enrich the plaintiff.

Legislation cited (19)

Cases cited (18)

  • Oloka Onyango and Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 6 of 2014)
  • Maruri Venkata and 2 Others v Bank of India (U) Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 804 of 2018)
  • Mackay v Attorney General and 3 Others (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 12 of 2018)
  • Mugarura Steven v Herman Owomugisha and Another (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 419 of 2017)
  • Francis Tumwekwasize and 2 Others v Attorney General (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 36 of 2009)
  • Security 2000 Ltd v Cumberland (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 916 of 2014)
  • Muwonge v Attorney General [1967] EA 17
  • Kaggwa Vincent v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 391 of 2014)
  • Robert Asiimwe Akanga and Another v Attorney General and 2 Others (High Court Miscellaneous Application Nos. 7 and 8 of 2022)
  • Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341
  • Charles Acire v M Engola (High Court Civil Suit No. 143 of 1993)
  • Kibimba Rice Ltd v Umar Salim (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1992)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
  • Issa Wazembe v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 154 of 2016)
  • Sentongo Jimmy v J Kabugo Ltd and Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 342 of 2014)
  • Butterworth v Butterworth & Englefield [1920] P 126
  • Rookes v Barnard [1964] AC 1129
  • Veitch E. in East African Cases on the Law of Tort (1972 Edition) at page 78

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Twine v Attorney General (Misc Cause 3 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 478 (21 June 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.