THE HIGH COURT ORDERS THE GOVERNMENT TO PAY TRILLIONS OF SHILLINGS IN TESO WAR COMPENSATION CASE; JULIUS OCHEN AND 205,000 OTHERS VERSUS ATTORNEY GENERAL CIVIL SUIT NO. 292 OF 2010.

JULIUS OCHEN AND 205,000 OTHERS VERSUS ATTORNEY GENERAL CIVIL SUIT NO. 292 OF 2010.

Summary of Court Findings

1. The High Court found that the government of Uganda failed in her statutory duty to protect the people of the Teso Sub region and their properties during the wars and insurgencies between 1986 to 1994.
2. The High court found the Government liable to pay compensation to the victims and affected persons.

Factual back ground

The Teso Sub-region experienced wars and insurgencies between 1980 to 2006 perpetuated by various armed groups which included Uganda People’s Army (UPA), The National Resistance Army (NRA), The Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), The Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF) and Karimojong Warriors.

The Plaintiffs as victims and affected persons of the said war and insurgencies sued the Government of Uganda for neglecting her statutory duty to protect them and their property as citizens of Uganda. The Plaintiffs sought for compensation for the lost lives and property.

Detailed findings of court

1. Duty of the state to protect the lives and properties of her citizens.
   Court reaffirmed that pursuant to article 209 of the Constitution of Uganda 1995 as amended, the Government of Uganda had a duty to deploy the Uganda People’s Defence Forces to provide Security to her citizens inclusive of the plaintiffs. Therefore the government was found liable for failure to adequately execute the said constitutional mandate.
   
   Court further clarified that the state is under duty to protect the lives and properties of her citizens through its establishments like the Uganda People’s Defence Forces and the Uganda Police Force.
   
   Court went ahead to make it clear that even if the Government adduced evidence to show that they tried their best, their efforts did not meet the expected standards and that the Government had the Constitutional Mandate to control the flow of arms and ammunitions into Uganda.
2. The requirement for compensation for failure to execute her constitutional mandate.
   The Attorney General contended that liability could not be imposed on the defendant when it was provided for in the law. However, one of the Attorney General’s witnesses admitted that the UPDF caused loss of property and livestock therefore on that basis the president had directed for compensation of the people of Teso whose claims could be verified.
   
   Court relied on articles 26(2) and 50(1) of the Constitution which provide for compensation where infringement of Human Rights has been approved as is in the instant case to grant the plaintiff’s what Court deemed as fair and adequate compensation.

Legal implications and key takeaways

• The Government has a duty to protect her citizens and their property, failure of which the Government is liable to make good the resultant losses and fatalities through compensation.
• Subject to verification and validating the plaintiff’s lists and claims, Court awarded each plaintiff who numbered 205,004 who lost an adult person and a child ugshs 20,000,000/= and ugshs 10,000,000/= respectively, any claims of torture, rape, abduction, injury and unlawful detention each of the 205,004 were awarded ugshs 1,000,000/=, General damages and exemplary damages of ugshs 2,000,000/= and ugshs 1,000,000/= per person respectively which amounts get to over 4 trillion Uganda shillings.
• Court further awarded compensation for the lost properties and livestock at the prevailing market price between 1986 to 1994 to be agreed upon by the parties and make a report to court within six months from the date of judgement failure of which court would assign the appropriate figures.
• Court further awarded an interest of 6% per annum from the date of filing the suit till payment in full on compensation for the lost lives, torture, rape, abduction, injury and unlawful detention.
• Court further awarded 6% per annum on exemplary and general damages from the date of judgment till payment in full.
• Court went ahead to award costs of the suit to the plaintiffs.

 Download the detailed judgement here.

AUTHORS