[2023] UGHRC 7
The Tribunal found that the shooting of the complainant by a Police officer was unintentional and did not amount to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. However, the respondent was held liable for violation of the complainant's right to security of person. The Tribunal considered the evidence of injury,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] UGHRC 7
- Parties
- Applicant: Kato Gerald Ssenyange; Respondent: Attorney General
- Court
- Uganda Human Rights Commission
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Complaint UHRC 99 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Human Rights Complaint / Final Decision
- Outcome
- complaint_allowed
- Judges
- Mariam Wangadya - Chairperson, Stephen Basaliza - Commissioner, Omara Apitta Lamex - Commissioner, Shifrah Lukwago - Commissioner
- Legal Topics
- Right to Security of Person, Compensation for Violation, State Liability, General Damages
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Kato Gerald Ssenyange
Applicant
Attorney General
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint / Final Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the shooting by the Police officer amounted to a violation of the complainant's right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
- 2 Whether the respondent is liable for violation of the complainant's right to security of person.
- 3 Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation for the injuries sustained.
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal found that the shooting of the complainant by a Police officer was unintentional and did not amount to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. However, the respondent was held liable for violation of the complainant's right to security of person. The Tribunal considered the evidence of injury, the respondent's admission and regret, and the impact on the complainant's life. It awarded general damages to compensate for the violation and ordered interest at the court rate until payment in full.
Court Disposition
complaint_allowed
Orders
- The complaint is allowed.
- The Attorney General is ordered to pay to the complainant a total sum of UGX 8,000,000 as general damages for violation of his right to security of person.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
# THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA THE UGANDA HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION (UHRC) TRIBUNAL **HOLDEN AT KAMPALA** COMPLAINT NO: UHRC/ 99/2011 KATO GERALD SSENYANGE:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: $\Lambda$ ND ATTORNEY GENERAL :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 1. HON: MARIAM WANGADYA CORAM: 2. HON: COL (RTD) STEPHEN BASALIZA
3. HON: OMARA APITTA LAMEX
## 4. HON: SHIFRAH LUKWAGO
#### **BRIEF FACTS**
The Complainant, alleges that on 18<sup>th</sup> April 2011 at about 10:00 a.m., while he was in Kitaka Trading Center talking to some people to stop destroying someone's property, he was shot by a Police officer in his right side cheek and he fell down. That he regained his consciousness when he was at Mulago National Referral Hospital. That as a result of the shooting, his hands and neck were deformed and he can no longer do the work he used to do. He also alleged that he suffers constant pain in the head, spine and experiences general body weakness. The Complainant prayed to the Tribunal to order for compensation to be paid to him by the Respondent for the alleged violation of his right of freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
#### **DECISION**
This was an un intentional shooting as evidenced from the testimonies of the complainant and his witnesses. This tribunal is not satisfied that the Respondent's agents violated the Complainant's right to freedom from torture but instead holds the respondent liable for the violation of his right to security of person. The Respondent's agents regretted the shooting as evidenced by visits to the
Complainant in hospital by the Police Spokesperson at the time, Judith Nabakooba and Brigadier Nalweyiso.
We therefore make the following orders:
### **ORDERS**
- 1. The complaint is allowed. - 2. The Attorney General is ordered to pay to the Complainant a total sum of UGX $8,000,000=$ (Uganda Shillings Eight Million Shillings Only) as general damages for violation of his right to security of person. - 3. The general damages shall attract interest at the court rate from the date of this decision until payment in full. - 4. Each party shall bear their own costs.
Either party not satisfied with the decision of the Tribunal may appeal to the High Court of Uganda within thirty (30) days from the date of delivery of the detailed decision.
DATED AT KAMPALA ON THIS ....................................
XXLHONIST
**HON: MARIAM WANGADYA**
**CHAIRPERSON**
sah?
HON: COETRTD) STEPHEN BASALIZA **MEMBER**
| HON: OMARA APITTA LAMEX<br><b>MEMBER</b> | |------------------------------------------| | |
**HON: SHIFRAH LUKWAGO MEMBER**