[2023] UGHCCD 391

[2023] UGHCCD 391

The court found that the applicant was arrested on 20th October 2022 and released on 21st October 2022, as evidenced by the affidavits of the respondents, which were not controverted by the applicant. The principle that uncontroverted affidavit evidence is presumed true was applied. Since there was no evidence that...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] UGHCCD 391
Parties
Applicant: Kalanzi Sharif; Respondent: The Attorney General of Uganda; Respondent: Inspector General of Police (IGP); Respondent: The Director, CID Directorate; Respondent: Corporal Mugisha Genesius
Court
HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Miscellaneous Cause 276 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Cause / Ruling
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
Baguma, J
Legal Topics
Habeas Corpus, Personal Liberty, Unlawful Detention, Affidavit Evidence
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Habeas Corpus Personal Liberty Unlawful Detention Affidavit Evidence

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kalanzi Sharif

Applicant

The Attorney General of Uganda

Respondent

Inspector General of Police (IGP)

Respondent

The Director, CID Directorate

Respondent

Corporal Mugisha Genesius

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Cause / Ruling

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's right to personal liberty was infringed.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to the remedies sought under habeas corpus.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was arrested on 20th October 2022 and released on 21st October 2022, as evidenced by the affidavits of the respondents, which were not controverted by the applicant. The principle that uncontroverted affidavit evidence is presumed true was applied. Since there was no evidence that the applicant was still in custody or unlawfully detained at the time of the application, there was no reasonable ground to warrant the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. The application therefore failed as the applicant was not being held by the respondents at the time of the hearing.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is hereby dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.