The High Court in Mukono has ordered a group of state agents, police officers, and local leaders to pay compensation to a farmer after finding multiple violations of his constitutional rights during a contested land eviction in Naggalama, Mukono District.
The violations included unlawful assault, arbitrary detention, and failure by authorities to act on reported criminal complaints.
The court directed the LC I Chairperson of Wanjeyo-Kalagala-Kito Village, George William Ssembatya, together with State House Anti-Corruption Unit operative Valentine Okoth, to each pay Shs25 million to Emmanuel Mubiru for subjecting him to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.
In addition, the Attorney General was ordered to pay Shs30 million for police inaction in prosecuting reported offences, Shs5 million to Kiranda Timothy for detention beyond the constitutional time limit, and Shs1 million to Mukono RDC Hajjat Fatuma Ndisaba for issuing an administrative directive without first granting Mubiru a fair hearing.
In a judgment delivered on June 8, 2026, Justice Stephen Mubiru also awarded costs to the applicants but declined to suspend related criminal proceedings or restore ownership of the disputed land, noting that constitutional petitions are not meant to resolve private land ownership conflicts.
The court found that Emmanuel Mubiru sustained serious injuries during the eviction exercise, including trauma to sensitive body areas, chest pain, blood in urine, difficulty swallowing, and multiple soft tissue injuries confirmed through medical documentation.
Justice Mubiru held that the actions of Ssembatya and Okoth met the threshold for cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment under Article 24 of the Constitution.
He noted that the attack appeared intentional and excessive. The judge stated that “the deliberate targeting of sensitive areas such as the testes, together with an unprovoked group assault involving a grader and trespass, demonstrates both severity and intent.”
However, the court declined to classify the conduct as torture, explaining that there was insufficient proof that the purpose was to extract information, punish, intimidate, or coerce the victim.
The dispute arose from a contested three-acre kibanja in Naggalama, which Mubiru says he purchased in 2017 and 2019 and developed into a sugarcane plantation valued at approximately Shs225 million.
Tensions reportedly escalated when descendants of the original landowners attempted to reclaim the land, resulting in competing claims already before the Mukono Chief Magistrate’s Court.
Court records indicated that on October 23, 2025, a group allegedly including the respondents arrived with a bulldozer to clear the plantation, during which Mubiru was assaulted.
The judge relied on photographs and medical reports to conclude that the evidence supported Mubiru’s account and placed the respondents at the scene.
On the issue of police inaction, the court found that authorities failed to pursue case files under CRB No. 893/2025 and CRB No. 921/2025 despite sanction from the Director of Public Prosecutions.
It further noted that some of the suspects were later used as prosecution witnesses against Mubiru, undermining his right to equal protection before the law.
Regarding unlawful detention, the court held that Kiranda Timothy was held for seven days without charge, exceeding the constitutional requirement of 48 hours, even when weekends were considered.
The judge emphasized that the time limit begins running from the moment of arrest and that detention beyond it without court appearance amounts to a violation of personal liberty.
The court also found that the Mukono RDC breached principles of fair administrative action by preventing Mubiru from accessing the disputed land without first hearing his side of the matter.
However, several other claims, including those related to economic loss, deprivation of property, and presumption of innocence, were dismissed due to insufficient evidence or because they were more appropriately handled within ongoing civil proceedings.
The court further declined to issue orders halting criminal proceedings or restoring possession of the land, reiterating that constitutional petitions are not a substitute for determining land ownership disputes.
English 