The Court of Appeal has overturned a Shs 200 million compensation award granted to Henry Muloki, who alleged that he was tortured by a prison warder while in detention at Kitalya Prison.
In a judgment delivered in Kampala on Wednesday, a three-member panel comprising Deputy Chief Justice Moses Kazibwe-Kawumi and Justices Oscar John Kihika and Stella Alibateese allowed an appeal by the state and set aside the High court orders, except for the sentence imposed on Muloki.
The judges ruled that High court judge Margaret Mutonyi acted beyond her jurisdiction when she ordered the state to compensate Muloki without properly instituted proceedings or giving the government an opportunity to respond to the torture allegations.
The case arose from a criminal trial in which Muloki was convicted of aggravated defilement after pleading guilty on June 8, 2017. During the proceedings at the High court in Mukono, court records show that Muloki was carried into the courtroom by fellow inmates and took his plea while lying down.
When the judge inquired about his condition, Muloki said he had been beaten by a prison warder identified only as Otim while working at the Kitalya Prison farm.
Concerned about his physical condition, Mutonyi concluded that Muloki had been tortured by a government agent. She subsequently sentenced him to four and a half years’ imprisonment, equivalent to the period he had already spent on remand, and ordered his immediate release.
The judge also ordered the state to pay Muloki Shs 200 million in compensation for the pain, psychological torture and suffering he had allegedly endured. She further directed the government to provide him with appropriate medical treatment and meet the legal expenses associated with pursuing the award.
The Attorney General and Solicitor General were directed to arrange the payment. However, the state, represented by Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Samalie Wakholi, appealed against the decision, arguing that the judge had made findings of torture without hearing from the alleged perpetrator or allowing the government to defend itself.
In its judgment, the Court of Appeal emphasised that the right to a fair hearing under Article 28 of the Constitution is a fundamental and non-derogable right. The judges noted that the prison warder accused of assaulting Muloki had neither been summoned nor produced in court to respond to the allegations.
The court also observed that the Attorney General, who is constitutionally responsible for representing the government in civil proceedings, was not a party to the original case.
The judges said the High court erred in holding the state liable for the alleged actions of a government employee whose identity and conduct had not been established through appropriate legal proceedings.
On the compensation award, the court ruled that Section 33 of the Judicature Act, now Section 37, only allows courts to grant remedies in respect of legal or equitable claims properly brought before them.
The judges said the criminal proceedings before Mutonyi were intended to determine Muloki’s guilt and impose a lawful sentence, not to adjudicate a separate civil claim against the government.
They added that Muloki could have pursued compensation through a civil suit against the appropriate party or sought constitutional redress under Article 50(1), which provides remedies, including compensation, where fundamental rights have been violated.
The court further clarified that Sections 125 and 126 of the Trial on Indictments Act, which provide for compensation to victims of offences, did not authorise the judge to order the state to compensate Muloki for alleged torture unrelated to the offence for which he had been convicted.
The appellate judges consequently held that the compensation and related orders had been made without jurisdiction and could not stand. They allowed the appeal and set aside the High court’s orders, save for the sentence imposed on Muloki.