Wakilii

Yiga Hassan v Attorney General [2017] UGHRC 56

Tribunal · 2017 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 right to security of person by police shooting
Decision
Complaint allowed with damages and exemplary damages awarded to complainant

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 complainant's right to security of person under Article 9 of the ICCPR was violated when a police officer shot him with a stray bullet while attempting to disperse a mob. The shooting of live bullets randomly at unarmed civilians was arbitrary and oppressive. The Attorney General was held vicariously liable as the officer was on duty and acting on orders. The complainant was awarded UGX 12,000,000 in general damages and UGX 3,000,000 in exemplary damages.

Outcome

Complaint allowed with damages and exemplary damages awarded to complainant

Facts

On 25 February 2011 at around 8:00 am, the complainant Yiga Hassan, a 22-year-old taxi driver, heard a commotion near his home in Kawuku Parish, Wakiso District. A crowd had gathered at Katimba Landing Site after a man allegedly raped a young girl. When the complainant went outside, he saw six armed police officers including SPC Okoche Sam attempting to disperse the mob. SPC Okoche fired six bullets, ostensibly into the air, to scatter the crowd. One bullet struck the complainant, who was standing approximately 100 meters away and was not part of the mob. The bullet affected his pancreas, large intestines, and leg veins. He was hospitalized at Agagai, Entebbe Government Hospital, Mulago National Referral Hospital, and Medik Hospital for a total of nine months, during which he excreted through his stomach for six months. The complainant filed a complaint with the Uganda Human Rights Commission alleging violation of his right to security of person.

Issues

  1. Whether the Complainant's right to security of person was violated?
  2. Whether the Respondent is vicariously liable?
  3. Whether there is any remedy available to the Complainant?

Orders

  • Complaint allowed.
  • Respondent ordered to pay complainant UGX 12,000,000 as general damages for violation of right to security of person.
  • Respondent ordered to pay complainant UGX 3,000,000 as exemplary damages for violation of right to security of person.
  • Total sum of UGX 15,000,000 to attract interest at 10% per annum from date of decision until payment in full.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Human Rights — Right to Security of Person — Use of Force by Police
Under Article 9(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, everyone has the right to freedom and security of person, which includes the right to be free from all forms of violence from public or private sources. This right is violated when police use lethal or excessive force that prevents a person from enjoying life, body, and health.
Administrative Law — Police Powers — Use of Force and Firearms
Under Section 28(2) of the Police Act Cap 303, a police officer may use force only where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the officer or another person is in danger of grievous bodily harm, and only such force as is reasonable in the circumstances may be used. Police must apply non-violent means before resorting to firearms, and may use force only if other means remain ineffective.
Tort Law — Vicarious Liability — Master and Servant
An employer is vicariously liable for acts of servants or employees where the relationship of master and servant is established and the servant is found liable. Once it is proved that the servant was an employee of the master, there is a presumption that the servant was acting in the course of employment, and the burden lies on the master to prove to the contrary.
Human Rights — Remedies — Damages for Rights Violations
Where a human rights violation is established, the injured party is entitled to such remedy as the tribunal deems fit, which may include payment of compensation or other legal redress. The principle governing assessment of damages is that the injured party should be awarded such sum as will put that party in the same position as if the injury had not been sustained.
Tort Law — Damages — Exemplary Damages
Where government servants have been guilty of arbitrary, oppressive, or unconstitutional conduct, the complainant is entitled to exemplary damages. The rationale behind exemplary damages is not to enrich the plaintiff but to punish the defendant and deter repetition of the conduct.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (13)

  • Issa Khakosi Wamusi v Ben Mukhwana (HCT-04-CV-CA-125-2012)
  • Uganda Breweries Ltd v Uganda Railways Corporation (SCCA No. 6 of 2001)
  • Otim Jimmy Odala and Another v Attorney General and Another (UHRC Complaint No. G/344/2003)
  • Eduku v Attorney General [1995] XI KALR 24
  • Muwonge v Attorney General [1967] EA 7
  • Rhoda M Nambi Kibirige v Attorney General [1988-90] HCB 133
  • Bashishana Francis and Attorney General IIHRC/MBA/11772005
  • Iwina v Arua Town Council [1977] HCB 28
  • Robert Coussens v Attorney General (SCCA No. 8 of 1999)
  • Businge David and Attorney General & Asiimwe Yasin UHRC/FP/13/2006
  • Fred Kainamura and Another v Attorney General [1994] KALR 92
  • Babwetera Moses v Attorney General (UHRC Complaint No. FPT/33/2008)
  • Okello James v Attorney General (HCCS No. 574 of 2003)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Yiga Hassan v Attorney General 2017 UGHRC 56 (18 September 2017)
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.