Nduhukire Nasser alias Don Nasser v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 8 of 2025) [2025] UGHC 474 (30 June 2025)

### THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

### IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

#### [INTERNATIONAL CRIMES DIVISION]

### HCT-ICD-MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.008 OF 2025

(Arising from HCT- ICD-PT – NO. 0001 OF 2025)

<table>

NDUHUKIRE NASSER alias DON NASSER ................................... **APPLICANT** 10

**VERSUS**

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF UGANDA ...................................

# BEFORE: HON. MR. JUSTICE BASHAIJA K. ANDREW **RULING**

NDUHUKIRE NASSER alias DON NASSER (hereinafter referred to as the "Applicant") brought this application against the Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda *(hereinafter*) *referred to as the "Respondent");* under Article 50(1) & (4) of the *Constitution of the Republic* of Uganda 1995 (Constitution); Articles 5, 7 and 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human 20 Rights; Article 1 of the International Convention against Torture, Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; Article 5 of the African Charter on Human & Peoples Rights; Ss. $3(1)$ & 2(a), $4(1)(a)$ & (2), 6, $8(1)$ & (2), 10, $11(1)$ & (2) and 17 of the *Human Rights Enforcement* Act 2019; Rules 2, 3(a), 5(1)a, (2)a & b, 6(1) a &b, 7(1), 8(1) and 11 of the Judicature (Fundamental and Other Human Rights & Freedoms)(Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2019; seeking the following reliefs;

> 1. A declaration that the Applicant's right to personal liberty was violated by the officers of the Uganda Police Force who caused the illegal and unlawful arrest and rendition of the Applicant from the Republic of Kenya without due extradition process contrary to Article 23 of the Constitution.

- <sup>5</sup> 2. A dcclaration that thc non dcrogablc righls and I'rccdoms and othcr I'undamcntal rights ol thc Applicant havc bccn violatcd, thrcatcncd and or inliingcd upon through usc ol'torturc by ol'liccrs ol'thc lJganda l)olicc lbrcc. - 3. A dcclaration that npplicant's trial in Criminal Casc No. 979 ol'2024 is a nullity for thc blatanl violations, inliingcmcnl and thrcatcns his non dcrogablc rights and lrccdoms from torlurc. crucl, inhuman and dcgrading lrcatmcnt and othcr human rights and frccdoms guarantccd undcr Articlcs 23,24, 42 and 44(a) ol' thc (lonstitution. by thc lJganda l)olicc Olliccrs. - 4. A dcclaration that thc Attorncy Ocncral is vicariously liablc for lhc actions of its agcnts, thc [Jganda l)olicc Olllccrs. - 5. Compcnsatory ordcrs bc madc against thc Itcspondcnt lirr thc gross and blatant violatiorrs, inliingcmcnts and thrcats to lhc npplicant's non dcrogablc rights and liccdoms from torturc. crucl. inhuman and dcgrading trcatmcnt and othcr human rights and liccdoms, guarantecd undcr Articlcs 23,24,42 and44(a) ol'thc Constitution. 15 - 6. Any othcr rcliel'that this Ilonourablc Court may dccm ljt and just to grant in thc intcrcst of justicc. - 7. Costs ol' thc application.

<sup>I</sup>hc (jrounds ol'thc application arc that:

- 'l hc Applicant is accuscd pcrson N0. I (Al) in Criminrl Case No. 979 of 2024; Ugando v. Ntluhukire Nasser alias Don Nasser & Anor. - 'l'hc Applicant is chargcd with thc ol'l'cnccs ol'Aggravatcd 'l rallicking in (lhildrcn C/ss 2( I ) (a); and 4(a) t'tl' thc I'revention of Tralfickirtg in I'ersons Acl Cap. 13 l; and I)clllcmcnt C/s I 20( I )(a) ctl'thc I'enal Code Act Cap. 128. ) - On 2l't Novcrnbu 2024, thc Applicant was conrmiltcd lbr trial to thc Intcrnational Crimcs I)ivision (lCI)). - On lllrr' Scptcnrbcr 2024, at about 2200 hours, thc Applicant was arrcstcd/kidnappcd by liliccn plain clothcd anncd nrcn at Startxrt Apartnlcnts,8'l'l;loor, (-'ondominiurn Apartment No. 801, Wood Avcnuc Kilimani, Nairobi Kcnya, on allcgations ol'nrurdcr and brought back to lJganda bclbrc bcing chargcd and indictcd with thc albrcsaid oflbnccs. .l

t \i <sup>Z</sup>

- 5. The Applicant was arrested and or kidnapped from Nairobi Kenya and brought back to Uganda by officers of the Uganda Police Force. - 6. That prior to the Applicant's arrest and or kidnap from Nairobi-Kenya to Uganda, there was no order of court and or due extradition process undertaken. - 7. Following his arrest and or kidnap from Nairobi-Kenya, the Applicant was detained for five days before being arraigned in court on $23^{rd}$ September 2024. - 8. The Respondent has a duty to respect, uphold, observe, promote and fulfil the fundamental human rights, freedoms and dignity of the Applicant and any other person. - 9. The Uganda Police Force is enjoined to be patriotic, professional, disciplined, productive and of good character. - 10. The Respondent and the Uganda Police Force, in general, is mandated to protect life, property, preserve law and order and prevent crime. - 11. The Respondent, its agents, employees and or servants, the Uganda Police Forces' conduct aforesaid and complained of, is not only unbecoming of police officers with a heightened duty to respect, uphold, observe and promote the fundamental human rights, freedoms and dignity of any person in his custody or detention, but also a clear gross and blatant violation of non derogable rights and freedoms from torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and other human rights and freedoms, guaranteed under Articles 23, 24, 42 and 44(a) of the Constitution. - 12. The Applicant as a person directly affected by the said violations has a right to bring to the attention of this Honourable Court, the gross and blatant violations, abuses and infringements of the non derogable rights and freedoms from torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and other human rights and freedoms by the Respondent's Uganda Police Force or any other person, and to seek redress from this Court as provided for under the *Enforcement of Human Rights Act, 2019*, and this Court ought to thoroughly investigate and inquire into the violations aforesaid and give appropriate redress. - 13. In these circumstances, it would be just and convenient for this Honourable Court to grant the declarations and orders sought.

$\mathfrak{Z}$

$\mathsf{S}$

## The Applicant's evidence.

$\mathsf{S}$

In his affidavit supporting the application dated 30<sup>th</sup> April 2025, the Applicant states that he is a businessman with business dealings in Uganda, Kenya and Dubai. That he is accused person N0. 1(A1) in *Criminal Case No. 979 of 2024* before this Court. That he is a victim of human rights violations by the Respondent's agents, servants and or employees of the Uganda Police Force.

That the Respondent being the principal Legal Adviser to the Government of Uganda is vicariously $10$ liable for the actions of the officers of the Uganda Police Force. That the Respondent, its agents, servants and or employees of the Uganda Police Force have a duty to respect, uphold, observe, promote and fulfil the Applicant's fundamental human rights, freedoms and dignity and of any other person; and that the Uganda Police Force is enjoined to be patriotic, professional, disciplined, productive and of good character, and or mandated to protect life, property, preserve law and order, 15

and prevent crime.

That on 18<sup>th</sup> September 2024 at about 2200 hours, the Applicant was arrested/kidnapped by fifteen plain clothed armed men at Staroot Apartments, 8<sup>th</sup> Floor, Condominium Apartment N0. 801, Wood Avenue Kilimani, Nairobi in Kenya, on allegations of murder and was brought back to Uganda before being charged with the aforesaid offences. That he was arrested and or kidnapped

That prior to his arrest and or kidnap from Nairobi in Kenya to Uganda, the Applicant has since discovered that there was no order of court and or due extradition process undertaken. That his arrest and kidnap from Nairobi Kenya and his subsequent rendition to Uganda by armed Uganda

from Nairobi, Kenya, and brought back to Uganda by officers of the Uganda Police Force.

Police Officers without any lawful orders and or due extradition process, is illegal, unlawful and a 25 blatant violation of his fundamental rights to liberty as enshrined under the Constitution of Uganda.

That his detention exceeding the Constitutional 48 hours' limit before being arraigned in court is illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional and a violation of his fundamental rights as enshrined under Articles 23, 24, 42 and 44 of the Constitution. That the Respondent, its agents, employees and or servants, the Uganda Police Force's conduct is not only unbecoming of Police officers with a

30 heightened duty to respect, uphold, observe and promote the fundamental human rights, freedoms and dignity of any person in its custody or detention, but also a clear gross and blatant violation of the non derogable rights and freedoms from torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and

- other human rights and freedoms guaranteed under Articles 23, 24, 42 and 44(a) of the $\mathsf{S}$ Constitution. That as a person directly affected by the said violations, he has a right to bring to the attention of this Court, of gross and blatant violations, abuses and infringements of non derogable rights and freedoms from torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and other human rights and freedoms by the Respondent's Uganda Police Force or any other person, and to seek redress - 10

from the Court as provided under the *Enforcement of Human Rights Act 2019*. That this Court ought to thoroughly investigate and inquire into the violations aforesaid and give appropriate redress.

## Applicant's supplementary affidavit.

The Applicant in his supplementary affidavit states that at the time of his travel to Kenya, he used his National Identity Card issued by the Government of the Republic of Uganda and that he passed 15 through immigration points normally. That on 18<sup>th</sup> September 2024, at around 10pm while at Staroot Apartments in Kilimani-Nairobi Kenya, six armed men in casual civilian clothes wielding pistols accompanied by a security guard of Staroot Apartments broke into his apartment, abducted him and confiscated his National I. D card.

- Further, that he was forcefully removed from his apartment. That prior to the incident, his friend 20 Sarah Njeri had just visited him at the apartment and had just left shortly before the event occurred, and that she witnessed the Applicant's forceful arrest and abduction. That the Applicant was blindfolded using pieces of cloth (scarves) and bundled in a motor vehicle and driven to an unknown place in Kenya where he was placed in a container and detained for three days. - That while being detained in the container, the Applicant was subjected to various forms of torture 25 and threats by members of the Uganda Police Force, including but not limited to being regularly beaten and slapped while blindfolded, as the police officers demanded for access to the his phone passwords and bank account information, being denied food for three days, with the police claiming that the deprivation was due to the Applicant's alleged refusal to cooperate with them; - and having the Applicant's genitals forcefully squeezed and forcing him to surrender his passwords 30 and bank account details.

That after being detained in the container for three days, the Applicant was removed, blindfolded again, forcefully placed in another motor vehicle and driven to unknown location, which the

- <sup>5</sup> Applicant latcr camc to lcarn was thc Malaba bordcr. 'l'hat upon arrival, hc was transl'crrcd liom thc car thcy had travcllcd in and put in anothor carlvan bclonging to IJganda l)olicc |orcc. 'l'hat thc cloths thcy had uscd to blindfold him wcrc rcmovcd and latcr thc Applicant was drivcn to Kampala. - '[ hat upon arrival in Kampala, Shccna Kamuhogo and thc Applicant wcrc bricl)y dctaincd in al Nakascro in a ccll which was guardcd by arrncd mcn drcsscd in IJganda l)coplcs l)cl'cncc I'irrccs (IJI'l)li) unitbrm. 'l hat thcy wcrc thcn translcrrcd to Naguru l)olicc I [cadqua(crs liom whcrc thcy worc takcn 10 thc Applicanl's homc Iirr a scarch. 'l'hat I'ollowing thc scarch, thcy wcrc takcn to Kira Road I'olicc Station whcrc thc Applicant was hcld lbr two nights bclorc bcing arraigncd in thc Iluganda I{oad Chicl Magistratcs Courl on 23'd Scptcmbcr 2024, jointly wilh Alcctc Promisc. 10

wilh olfcnccs ol-Aggravatcd 'l'raflicking in childrcn and l)cfilcmcnt virJc Buganda Road Courl AA 28 of 2024. 15

'l'hc Applicant contcnds thal thc actions ol'thc olliccrs ofthc ILcspondcnt in abducting hirn on l[ill' Scptcmbcr 2024. and arraigning hirn in Clourl on thc 23'd Soptcn.rbcr 2024, oonstitutc a violation ol'his right to pcrsonal lihcrty as cnshrincd in thc Conslitution.'l hat his abduction by agcnts ol'thc I{cspondcnt liom Kilimani. Nairobi Kcnya and lirrccl'ully transllrring him to lJganda withoul conducting cxtradition procccdings corlstitutc a violation ol'cxtradition laws ol'both IJganda and Kcnya, tl.rc li.\tradition (Reciprocol Backing of Warrants) Instrunrent; The liosl Africon Community Tre y; antl inlcrnalional laws govcrning cxlradilion. 'l'hal his rcndition and rcpatrialion lionr Nairobi Kcnya to [Jganda without an cxtradilion ordcr I'rom Kcnya was illcgal and such illcgality should not hc condoncd by court. 'l hat hc was unlawltlly rctumcd to lJganda in total violation and or brcach ol'local, rcgional and intcrnational laws and trcalics to which IJganda is a part1,. 'l'hat his trial is a nullity having bccn unlawlully rcpatriatcd to [Jganda liom Nairobi Kcnya. 20 25

# Rt:s lttttt tlt tt I's u /li I ovits i n ra pl.1'.

In an allldavit in rcply sworn by Mr. Kyomul,cndo .loscph. a Chicf Statc Altorncy((iSA) in thc Ollicc ol'thc [)ircctor ol' l)ublic l)rosccutions, thc l{cspondcnt dcnics that its agcnts. scrvants and or cmployccs ol'thc lJganda I'olicc [orcc violatcd thc human rights of thc Applicant. Mr. Kyomuhcndo .loscph slatcs that hc is parl ol'thc toam assigncd to prosccutc Criminal Case No. 30

)a

Kira Road CRB 678 of 2024, Uganda v. Nduhukire Nasser alias Don Nasser; and the case is a $\mathsf{S}$ prosecution -guided investigation. That he is well versed with the facts.

That the Applicant was charged with Aggravated Trafficking in persons' $C/s$ 2(1)(a) and 4(a) of the *Prevention of Trafficking in persons Act Cap. 131*. That it is not true that the Applicant was kidnapped from Nairobi Kenya by Uganda Police Officers. That the investigations reveal that the Applicant was arrested from Malaba, in Tororo on the Uganda's territory. That it is not true that the Applicant was tortured by officers of the Uganda Police Force. That the Applicant was produced at Buganda Road Court on 23<sup>rd</sup> September 2024, and the presiding Magistrate read to him the charges of Aggravated Trafficking in Persons' C/s 2(1)(a) and 4(a) of the *Prevention of* Trafficking in Persons Act Cap. 131.

- 15 That the case was thereafter mentioned several times in the presence of Mr. Kyomuhendo Joseph, in presence of Mr. Kyazze Ivan a Senior State Attorney, until the Applicant was committed to this Court for trial. That at the time the Applicant appeared in court for mention of the charges, he did not at any one time raise the torture allegations or complain of pain or injury, and that the allegations of torture are an afterthought. - Mr. Kyomuhendo stated that he knows that where a National Identification Card is used by a 20 person to travel out of Uganda, an interstate pass is issued and the traveller's particulars (biometrics) are scanned and captured by the database of the Immigration Department. That during investigations, the Applicant was examined on Police Form 24A and was found to be mentally sound, and did not have injuries on his body. That the application is devoid of any merit, and it is in the interest of justice that the same be dismissed. 25

In another affidavit in reply by the Respondent, D/PC Ruth Tumwikirize, states that she is attached to Kira Road Police Station Criminal Investigations Department. That she is the investigating officer in the case vide; *Kira Road CRB 678/2024*. That she is part of the team that was assigned to investigate *Criminal Case No. Kira Road CRB 678/2024* (aggravated trafficking in children).

That she received the file and upon perusal, the complainant and victim's statements had been 30 recorded. That the first suspect, Ateete Promise was arrested and interviewed on 17<sup>th</sup> June 2024, while the Applicant who was the prime suspect, was still on the run until 21<sup>st</sup> September 2024, when he was arrested.

That upon the Applicant's arrest, he was handed over to her and the team in September 2024, at $\mathsf{S}$ around 10:00am. That a body search was conducted on the Applicant and he was also examined on PF 24A. Then he was served lunch and thereafter led the team to his home in Kira Kito Zone Wakiso District, where they conducted a search. That upon the examination, the Applicant was found to be mentally sound with no injuries on any part of his body. That from his home, the Applicant was detained at Kira Road Police Station on Saturday 21<sup>st</sup> September 2024, vide *Kira* 10 **Road CRB 678/2024**, pending investigations. That the Applicant was interviewed on Sunday 22<sup>nd</sup> September 2024, and his statement recorded.

That the charges of Aggravated Trafficking in Children and Defilement were sanctioned and on Monday 23<sup>rd</sup> September 2024, the Applicant was taken to Court. That he applied for bail and stated in his affidavit that he was kidnapped from Kenya - an allegation D/PC Ruth Tumwikirize doubted. That she wrote a letter to the Director Citizenship and Immigration Control through her supervisor D/SP Ahimbi Maclean requesting for the Applicant's travel history. That the Director Immigration replied and stated that a search had been conducted on the available systems and the travel history report indicated that the Applicant last arrived into the country on 26<sup>th</sup> October 2023, through

Enterogenetic International Airport from Nairobi. That according to the travel history, the Applicant did 20 not travel out of Uganda between the 26<sup>th</sup> October 2023, and the 21<sup>st</sup> September 2024, when he was arrested.

That it is a Standard Operating Procedure(SOP) that for every person travelling out of the country using a National I. D card, an interstate pass is issued to him or her, and also the traveller's particulars are captured and stored in the data base. D/PC Ruth Tumwikirize denied that for all the time, the Applicant was in detention at Kira Road Police Station, he was tortured. She averred that all the human rights that accrue to a suspect in detention were respected/fully available to him. That it is in the interest of justice that the application be dismissed.

The Respondent filed another affidavit in reply sworn by D/ASP Musasizi Edward. That it is not true that the Applicant was kidnapped/arrested from Nairobi Kenya by officers of the Uganda Police Force. That in May 2024, he came to know through a radio call communication that was made to all Police Stations and Posts across the country, that Mr Nduhukire Nasser, the Applicant, was a wanted suspect to answer charges of human trafficking and defilement. That because he is a socialite and public figure, the Applicant was already known by D/ASP Musasizi Edward as to $\mathsf{S}$ how he looks like by appearance.

That on 21<sup>st</sup> September 2024, at around 8:00am, while at Malaba Town Council in his area of deployment, Tororo District on the territory of Uganda, he saw the Applicant walking on the streets with a certain light skinned girl. That he immediately called D/IP Tworekeirwe Wilber and inquired from him whether the Applicant was still a wanted man; to which the officer confirmed in the affirmative. That he called for back-up from Malaba Police Station and they started trailing the Applicant. That he stopped the Applicant, introduced himself and informed the Applicant that he was wanted on charges of human trafficking and defilement.

That during arrest, D/ASP Musasizi Edward discovered that the young lady the Applicant was walking with is called Kamuhogo Sheena, and that the two were friends. That he arrested the 15 Applicant and handed him over to Tworekeirwe Wilber who transported both the Applicant and the young lady to Kampala where the Applicant was wanted. D/ASP Musasizi Edward denied that the Applicant was abducted from Kenya and forcefully repatriated to Uganda. That the Applicant was arrested from Malaba, Tororo District in Uganda and not Nairobi in Kenya.

## Applicant's affidavit in rejoinder. 20

$10$

In his rejoinder, the Applicant states that all the affidavits in reply contain falsehoods, are incurably defective, and as such should be struck out. In particular, to paragraphs. 7, 16, 19, 20 and 21 of Ruth Tumwikirize's affidavit, the Applicant avers that they are contain falsehoods and the same contradict the depositions she had made in *Criminal Application No. 0031 of 2024*. That in

- paragraph 9 of her affidavit in *Criminal Application No. 0031 of 2024*, Ruth Tumwikirize stated 25 that investigations revealed that the Applicant fled to Kenya through ungazetted border points where the Applicant hid until 21<sup>st</sup> September 2024, when he was arrested. In specific reply to paragraph 20 of the said affidavit, the Applicant states that Ruth Tumwikirize was not in Kenya at the time of his abduction and she is not the arresting officer. That she cannot depose on facts she - does not possess. 30

In rejoinder to paragraphs 2, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13 and 15 of Mr. Kyomuhendo's affidavit, the Applicant states that they also contain falsehoods and contradict his earlier depositions in Criminal Misc ApplicationNo.0031 of 2024. That in paragraph 7 of his affidavit in reply in Criminal Misc

- <sup>5</sup> Applicalion No. 0031 of 2024. Kyomuhcndo statcd that thc Applicant ran away liom his homc and crosscd into Kcnya through ungazcttcd bordcr points. Ikrwcvcr. in his rcjoindcr to paragraphs tl, I I , I 2 and I 4 ol'Kyorluhcndo's al lldavit. thc Applicant avcrs that Kyomuhcndo was not prcscnt at thc time ol' his abduction Iiom Staroots Aparlnlcnts in Kilimani Nairobi Kcnya on lll'r' Scptcmbcr 2024. and that hc was not prcscnt during thc Applicanl's dctcnlion in a conlaincr in Kcnya. l'hat Mr. Kyomuhcndo cannol dcposc to facts whosc knowlcdgc hc doos not posscss. In 10 - addition, that torlurc docs not ncccssarily nccd thc pcrson adducing mcdical cvidcncc ofphysical injurics, and that dcpositions to thal cl-l'ccl arc intcndcd to hoodwink court.

In rcjoindcr to paragraphs 2,6, I to l5 ol'Mr. Musasizi's allldavit, thc Applicant statcs that thc samc contain I'alschoods. 'l hat thc Applicant has ncvcr bccn arrcstcd by Musasizi and ncithcr has hc cvcr mcl thc said Musasizi. 'l hat Musasizi was not prcscnt at thc timc ol- thc npplicant's abduction l'rom Kilimani Nairobi Kcnya on thc lll'l' Scptcrnbcr 2024. ln rcjoindcr to paragraphs 9 and I 2 ol'Musasizi's allidavit. thc Applicant statcs thal thc contcnts thcrcin arc lirll ol'Ialschoods. and that Kamuhogo Shccna is not light skinncd as claimcd by Musasizi.

## 20 'l-ltt /pplicant's su htttissions.

lhc Applicant subrnissior.rs prctniscd on tlic lilllowing tlrrcc tssucs

- l. lYhelher cottrl cun he used lo validate whal has been done h)'thc slole in frugranl trbttsc of kttotutt lows an procedures of e-rlrodition. - 2. Whather llrc Applicunl's riglrt to person(l liherly wos violaled h-y the tfficers of thc Uganda I'olicc n'ho coused the illegal and unluwlul orres! otttl rentlilion of thc Appliconl fron, the Rcpuhlic of Kcn.yu wilhoul ue c-tlrodilion process. - 3. llhalher thc Applicurt's non derogable rigltl lo frcedon, fron, totlure, cruel, itthunrun and cgroding lre trrtenl was iolulctl h1'lhc Respondenl. - 4. Wltat remedies urc ovoiluhle b the p rlics. - 30 On isstrc l. Counscl lbr thc Applicant submittcd that thc qucstion to bc addrcsscd is whcthcr court wrruld condonc thc violation ol'intcrnational. rcgional larvs and mcnrhcr statc obligations. 'l hat according to Articlcs 2l I and 212 ol' lhc Conslitutioz as arrcndcd, thc .jurisdiclion ol' thc [Jganda l)olicc lrorcc is rc rictcd within thc tcrritorial boundarics ol'tJganda. 'l hal in this casc mcmbcrs ol'

,/)

- the Uganda Police Force did enter Kenya on 18<sup>th</sup> September 2025, in total violation of the $\mathsf{S}$ principles of sovereignty enshrined under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and abducted the Applicant. That the Respondent ought to have followed procedure to in order to have the Applicant returned to Uganda to answer charges against him. That the Respondent could have followed one of two procedures under the law. That Article 124(5) of the *Treaty of East African Community* - 10

provides that the partner states agree to enhance co-operation in handling of cross-border crime, provision of mutual assistance in criminal matters including the arrest and repatriation of fugitive offenders and the exchange of information on national mechanisms for combating criminal activities.

That in a bid to operationalise or give effect to Article 124(5) (supra) the Republic of Kenya did

- enact the *Extradition (Contiguous and Foreign Countries) Act*, Laws of Kenya and also did enter 15 into a *Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement (MLA)* in 1967, to facilitate cooperation in criminal investigations including extradition and information sharing. That S. 5 of the *Extradition* (Contiguous and Foreign Countries) Act, laws of Kenya provides that a requisition for the surrender of a fugitive criminal of any country who is in or suspected of being in Kenya, shall be made to the Minister by a diplomatic representative or consular officer of that country. That upon 20 receipt of such requisition, the Minister may, by order under his hand, signify to a magistrate that a requisition has been made and require the magistrate to issue his warrant for the arrest and detention of the fugitive criminal. That this is the first option the Respondent had to follow but instead did not follow. - That the Second option for the Respondent to follow is provided for under Ss. 16 & 17 of the 25 *Extradition Act*, laws of Uganda and the *Extradition (Reciprocal Backing of Warrants)* **Instrument.** That the magistrate, in the instant case at Buganda Road court, would have issued a warrant for the apprehension of the Applicant. The warrant would then be sent for endorsement by a magistrate in Kenya and after endorsement, the magistrate in Kenya would order the police officers to execute the warrant to bring the accused before the endorsing magistrate. That a 30 magistrate before whom an apprehended person is brought, if satisfied that the warrant is duly authenticated and was issued by a person having lawful authority to issue it, may order the prisoner to be returned to the country in which the warrant was issued.

- 5 'l'hat thc Applicant's l<lrcclul rcpatriation lion.r Nairobi-Kcnya to lJganda lo stand trial without Ibllowing thc duc proccss ol'thc law olthc country whcrc hc was arrcstcd. dcnicd him his right to bcnclit liom cxtradition procccdings and instcad rcsullcd in cxtraordinary rcndition; which is illcgal. 't'hat all proccsscs lcading to tho abduction olthc Applicanl liom Kcnya and his subscqucnt rcpatriation to (Jgarrda wcrc taintcd with illcgalitics which this court should not condonc. 'l'o - buttrcss thcir argur'].lcnt, counscl lirr thc Applicant citcd nrticlc 2[i6 ol'thc Conslitution of the Repuhlic of Ugonda, Articlc 2 ol'lhc Cottslitulion of the Repuhlicof Kenya; Articlc 2(4) o['thc UN Charter; Articlc (r(a) ol' thc Treaty for the llstablishment of the liasl African Communityl Articlcs 1.7 & l0 ol'The Inter-Govern mental Authori4, o, llrur,onmenl (IGAD) Convenlion otr Exlroditiott: Articlc tl8(2) ol'thc Additionol Protocol I of 1977. 10 - On Issuc 2, Counscl lirr thc Applicant subrnittcd that thc Applicant upon his arrcsl and or abduction on llltr' Scptcmbcr 2024, was blindtoldcd using picccs ol'cloths and bundlcd in a nrotor vchiclc and drivcn to an unknown placc in Kcnya whcrc hc was dctaincd in a containcr ftrr thrcc days. 'l'hat this lact o['thc Applicant's dctcntion was not dcnicd or controvcrlcd by thc Ilcspondcnt. Furthor, that upon rcaching Kanrpala, hc was briclly dctaincd in a ccll at Nakascro and guarded by 15 - arnrccl mcn drcsscd in [Jl)l)li unilirrm. 'l'hat Articlc 23(2) ol'thc Constitution providcs that whcn a pcrson is so arrcstcd. rcstrictcd or dctaincd, hc or shc shall bc kcpt in any placc authoriscd by law. 'l hat thc placcs authoriscd by law to kccp accuscd pcrsons arc cithcr policc cclls or prisons and not containcrs and military cclls. Counscl cilcd thc casc ol- Uganda v. Jamal Ki1,ep6o o,,nt Abtlulloh nlios 'lon1' Kiyemha I ICT-00-lCD-SC-001-2023, in a ruling on a trial rvithin a lrial, whcrc court tbund that thc r:rilitary dctcntion lacility whcrc thc accuscd in lhat casc was. is a placc 20 25

not authoriscd by law and as such violatcs Articlc 23(2) <tl't|rc Constilulion.

'l hat in thc instant casc, thc Applicant spcnt a pcriod ol'fivc days at various policc stations bcforc bcing arraigncd in courl on 23'd Scptcmbcr 2024.'lhat this lact is not rcbutlcd by cithcr liuth 'l unrwikirizc, Musasizi l,ldward or Mr. Kyomuhcndo Joscph in thcir rcspcctivc alfidavits in rcply.

'l'hat in linergo l'rojekl v. Brigadier Kasiryg Qe1111f, & Anor IICMA No. 558/2009. it was hcld that whcrc lacts arc sworn in an allldavit and thcy arc nol dcnicd or rcbultcd by thc oppositc party, thc prcsumption is such facts arc adrnittcd.'l hat similarly in URA v. Slephen Mhosi SCCA No. 26 of 1995. thc courl hcld that an omission to challcngc/controvcrt cvidcncc in chicf ol'a matcrial or csscntial point or during cr<lss cxamination in cllcct mcans it is not dcnicd but acccptancc ol 30

t

that evidence. Also, that in *Sserunkuuma George William & Anor v. Attorney General Misc* $\mathsf{S}$ Cause No. 102 of 2021, it was held that there is no window or ventilator that is left by the law that can be exploited by the police as to justify a breach of the 48-hour rule.

On Issue 3, Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the right to freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment is non derogable; meaning that it is inviolable. That the right is

guaranteed under Article 24 & 44(a) of the *Constitution* as amended. That S. 2 of the *Prevention* and Prohibition of Torture Act Cap. 130 defines torture. That there is no required degree of proof for torture in that even the slightest torture is enough to constitute an infringement.

That in Paul Wanyoto Mugoya v. Sgt Oumo & Attorney General Civil Appeal No. 91 of 2021, court held that medical evidence is not a standard requirement for proving torture as it has no legal

basis. That it is rare to have direct evidence of torture because of the nature of the crime. That most 15 of the torture cases are carried out in secret while the victim is in detention; making it hard to obtain medical reports. Therefore, affidavit evidence can be relied on to prove torture.

Counsel submitted that the Applicant upon his abduction and arrest on 18<sup>th</sup> September 2024, was blindfolded using pieces of cloths, bundled into a motor vehicle and driven to an unknown place

- in Kenya where he was placed in a container and detained for three days. That while under 20 detention in the container, the Applicant was subjected to various forms of torture and threats by members of the Uganda Police Force, including being beaten and slapped regularly while blindfolded as they asked for his phone passwords, bank accounts, not giving the him food for three days while in the container as the officers claimed the he had refused to cooperate. That they - squeezed his genitals and this forced the Applicant to surrender his passwords and bank account 25 numbers.

Counsel submitted that the Respondent did not controvert these facts about the torture inflicted upon the Applicant during the three days of his detention. That Ruth Tumwikirize, in paragraph 20 of her affidavit, only spoke about the period the Applicant was under detention at Kira Road

Police Station where he was taken on 21<sup>st</sup> September 2024. That in paragraph 14 of Mr. 30 Kyomuhendo's affidavit, he stated that the Applicant was examined and did not have injuries on his body. Counsel cited the case of Dr. Kiiza Besigye & Ors v Attorney General, Constitutional Petition No. 7 of 2007, where court held that by physical assaults of the petitioners and Counsel Kiyemba Mutale on 1<sup>st</sup> March 2007, not only were the petitioners severally beaten and tortured,

- but their lawyer was also badly beaten to the extent that constituted torture. The International $\mathsf{S}$ Convention against Torture and other Cruel or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, defines torture to mean any act which causes severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession pushing him for an act he or a third person has committed or intimidating or coercing - him or a third person or for any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation 10 of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting man official capacity. Counsel buttressed this proposition citing the case of *Union Trade Centre L. M. D v.* Attorney General of Rwanda EACJ Appellate Division Appeal No. 1 of 2015 and Agaba v. Attorney General & 3 Ors HCCS No. 247 of 2016. - On Issue 4 concerning remedies, Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant has 15 satisfied the onus that warrants this court to issue the declarations prayed for. That as such the Applicant's trial should be declared a nullity as required by S. 11(2) of the *Human Rights Enforcement Act.* Counsel cited the case of *Robert Asiimwe Akanga & Anor v. Attorney General* & 2 Ors IIC Misc Application No. 007 & 008 of 2022 to support their submissions. The Applicant also prayed for punitive damages of Ugx. 50,000,000/ $=$ , and costs of the application. 20

## **Respondent's submissions.**

On Issue 1, Counsel for the Respondent submitted that there was no violation of the laws and procedure for extradition. That the Respondent's affidavits in reply clearly show that the Applicant was not arrested in Kenya, but rather at Malaba within the territory and jurisdiction of Uganda.

That S. 101 of the *Evidence Act*, provides that whoever desires any court to give judgment as to 25 any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he or she asserts must prove that those facts exist.

That in the instant case, the Applicant has not furnished court with the evidence to prove that he was indeed arrested in Kenya. That the Statutory Declaration the Applicant sought to rely on and collaborate his claim was rendered inadmissible in court during the hearing of this application. That there is no other evidence on court record collaborating the Applicant's claim of having been arrested in Kenya. That the Respondent furnished court with evidence from the Director Citizenship and Immigration Control demonstrating that the Applicant did not officially leave

Uganda after 23<sup>rd</sup> October 2023.

- Further, that the Applicant insists that he used the National Identification Card to pass through $\mathsf{S}$ immigration points. That, however, it is common knowledge that Ugandans use their passports or national identity cards to leave the country and enter Kenya. That travellers are always issued with an interstate pass which is provided at no cost at the border. That the Applicant has not furnished such evidence to prove his claim. - 10 Counsel submitted that there was no need for extradition in this case as the Applicant was arrested in Uganda. That S.23 of the *Police Act* and S. 10 of the *Criminal Procedure Code Act*, give powers to police to effect arrest of a person without a warrant, if the police have reasonable cause to suspect that the person has committed or is about to commit an arrestable offence. That in the instant case, the Applicant was already wanted to answer charges of human trafficking and defilement. That the arresting officer had the legal authority to arrest the Applicant. That as such, 15 this court has not sanctioned any illegality as the Applicant's arrest was in line with both national and international laws.

On Issue 2, Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Applicant's right to personal liberty was not violated by the Respondent's agents. That the Applicant was detained at Kira Road Police Station vide *Kira Road CRB 678/2024*, on Saturday 21<sup>st</sup> September 2024, and was presented to 20 court on Monday 23<sup>rd</sup> September 2025. That in the calculation of time, Sundays are excluded. That the 48-hour rule was hence not violated. In support of this position, Counsel for the cited the case of Ochwa v. Attorney General Civil Suit No. 41 of 2012, and maintained that the arrest and detention of the Applicant did not violate his right to personal liberty.

- On Issue 3, Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Applicant has not furnished court with 25 any evidence to show that he was subjected to any form of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. That the Respondent furnished court with the evidence of a PF24 which shows that the Applicant was mentally sound and had no injuries on any part of his body. That the Applicant's claims of torture are baseless accusations. - 30 Counsel submitted that torture is a serious allegation that should not be taken lightly. That in the instant case, the Applicant claims that 15 plain clothed persons tortured him, but he does not identify those who arrested him or the Ugandan agency they belong to. That this alone casts doubt on the veracity of the claims. That in *Issa Wazembe v. Attorney General Civil Suit No. 154 of 2016*, it was held that the courts should apply a very strict test when considering whether there has

- been torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. Only the worst examples are likely to satisfy the $\mathsf{S}$ test. That the Applicant is required to adduce cogent evidence to prove his claim, and the standard of proof for torture is slightly higher. To back this proposition, counsel cited the cases of **Issa** Wazembe (supra); Twine Emmanuel v. Attorney General, HC Miscellaneous Cause No. 03 of 2024; and Rights Trumpet & 2 Others v. AIGP Asan Kasingye & 5 Ors. - On Issue 4, Counsel for the Respondent submitted that whereas it is true that the courts of law $10$ have the power to declare criminal proceedings a nullity, nullification of proceedings is not an order that courts should be granting lightly. That such orders like stay of proceedings and nullifying proceedings should be granted sparingly and only in exceptional cases. That nullifying criminal proceedings is a grave judicial action which interferes with the right of the litigant to conduct their litigation, in this case, the state on behalf of the people of Uganda. 15

The Respondent also drew to the court's attention to *Constitutional Reference No. 002 of 2024*; Attorney General v. Akamba Paul which challenges the constitutionality of S.11 of the Human **Rights Enforcement Act, 2019**, relied on by the Applicant seeking to nullify his criminal trial. That a premature decision by this court risks conflicting with the anticipated ruling of the Constitutional Court thereby undermining judicial consistency and the supremacy of the Constitution.

Counsel for the Respondent maintained that the Applicant is not entitled to compensatory orders sought. In support of this submission, counsel relied on the cases of **Kenya Wildlife Service v.** James Mutembei (2019) eKLR; Attorney General v. David Tinyefuza, Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1997; Uganda Law Society v. Attorney General, Constitutional Petition No. 18 of 2005; and Nasif Mujib & Anor v. Attorney General HCCS No.160 of 2014.

## Applicant's submissions in rejoinder.

Counsel for Applicant submitted that the Respondent's submissions in reply were served onto the Applicant on 12<sup>th</sup> June 2025, contrary to the court's direction. That for that reason, the Applicant could file his submission in rejoinder by 13<sup>th</sup> June 2025. This court has studied the submissions in rejoinder and found them to be a repetition of the Applicant's evidence and submission. It is thus not called for to reproduce the same.

$\omega$ ## 5 Dclr:nttin tlitttt

'l'his court has carclully analyscd thc ploadings, thc cvidcncc and submissions ofall counscl in this application. 'l hcrc arc csscntially two kcy issucs, which arc thc heart ol'thc applicability ol'thc cxtradition proccsscs and laws ol'(.lganda and Kcnya as thcy rclatc to thc Applicant. -l'hc othcr issuc conccrns thc allcgations of acts ol'torturc ol'thc Applicant by pcrsons hc pcrccivcd to bc olliccrs o[thc [Jganda Iblicc l;orcc whilc in dctcntion in Nairobi Kcnya. lhc last issuc pcrtains to allcgations ol'thc violation ol'thc Applicant's right to pcrsonal libcrty by thc Rcspondcnt's Iailurc

to producc him in court within 4tl hours altcr his arrost. All thcsc issucs havc a dircct bcaring on thc.iurisdiction ol'this courl. and whclhcr in light olthc lacts ol'thc casc this court is clothcd with thc powcr cvcn thc inquirc into thosc issucs.

'l hc Applicant contcnds that togcthcr with onc Shccna Kanruhogo, hc was on l8rr' Scptcmbcr 2024, abductcd by liliccn plain clothcd mcn armcd with pistols, I'rom Starool Apartmcnts in Kilimani Nairobi Kcnya.'l'hat hc was blindloldod and drivcn to an unknown placc in Nairobi Kenya.'l'hat thc duo was placcd and dctaincd in a containcr lor thrcc days and dcnicd lirod. 'l'hat hc was torlurcd by his abductors who li>rccd him to disclosc to thcm in[ormation ol'his phoncs passwords and 15

- bank dctails. l'hat thcrcalicr thc duo was drivcn whilc blindlbldcd up to Malaba. 'l hat thcy wcrc rcnrovcd liorn thc vchiclc thcy travollcd in and put in anothcr and drivcn up to Kampala. 'l'hc Applicant contcnds that thoso who abductcd him wcrc olllccrs of thc l.lgandan l)olicc l"orcc, and thal thcir actions violatcd his right to liccdom liom torlurc, inhuman and dcgrading trcatmcnt and thc right to Iibcrty. 20 - 25 30 'l hc inl'crcncc drawn by court liom thc cvidcncc is that thc allcgcd abduction o['thc Applicant and ac(s ol'torturc by thc allcgcd olliccrs ol'[Jganda l\llicc l;orcc, took placc in Nairobi on thc lcrrilory o1' Kcnya. lhis alonc lundamontally cl'l'ccts thc jurisdiction ol this court in ad.iudicating this application. 'l hc issuc o I'.iurisdiction was cxtcnsivcly dcalt with by thc Kcnya Court of Appcal in tlrc casc ol'Orurrers of Motor Vessel l-illion "s" v. Callex Oil Kenya l.imited ll989l KLRI also citcd by Mubiru .l in Ugonda v. Ilon Kassiano lizati lYaadri & 3l Ors IIC Crim Rev, No. 0002 of 2018 (Gulu lligh Court). Nyaragi .lA whilc citing ll/ords ud Phroses Legalllt DeJined Vol.3 l-N ptge /J. hcld that;

"R.1' jurisiiction, is ntcnnl lltt uulhoril-l' tt'hich n ttturl hus lo ecile ,t ,llers lh(l ara bcJbrc or lakc cognix.rtn(( ol ,rrollcrs prcse nlel in u Jitrnul n,u.1,for ils dacisiotr. 'l'ha

{ \^- \*

limits of this authority are imposed by statute, charter or commission under which court is constituted and may be extended or restricted by the like means. If no restriction or limitation is imposed, the jurisdiction is said to be unlimited. A limitation may be of a kind and nature of the actions and matters which the particular court has cognizance or as to the area over which the jurisdiction shall extend, or it may partake both these characteristics."

Article 139(1) of the *Constitution* as amended, vests the High Court with unlimited original jurisdiction in all matters and such appellate and other jurisdiction as conferred by the constitution or other law. It is worth emphasizing that the concept of jurisdiction entails both pecuniary and territorial aspects. It is also the established position that jurisdiction is a creature of statute and

cannot be inferred. See Baku Raphael & Obiga Kania v. AG Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 15 2003; Musisi Kibugujju Badman v. Namakula Zam and Another HC Misc. Application No.303 of 2016 (Jinja High Court).

Thus whereas the High Court has unlimited jurisdiction in all civil and criminal matters over all persons in Uganda, the Court's territorial jurisdiction is limited by law to the extent of the borders of Uganda, with the exception of a few legally specified and limited instances where the High

$\mathsf{S}$

Section $4(1)(2)$ and (3) of the *Penal Code Act Cap. 128* provide for the extent of jurisdiction of this court as follows;

## "Extent of jurisdiction of courts.

Court has extraterritorial jurisdiction.

(1) The jurisdiction of the courts of Uganda for the purposes of this Code extends to every place within Uganda.

(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), the courts of Uganda shall have jurisdiction to try offences created under sections 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28 committed outside Uganda by a Uganda citizen or person ordinarily resident in Uganda.

(3) For the avoidance of doubt, the offences referred to in subsection (2) committed outside Uganda by a Ugandan citizen or a person ordinarily resident in Uganda shall be dealt with as if they had been committed in Uganda."

Section 5 also provides for offences committed partly within and partly beyond the jurisdiction, as follows:

- "When an act which, if wholly done within the jurisdiction of the court, would be an 10 offence against this Code is done partly within and partly beyond the jurisdiction, every person who within the jurisdiction does or makes any part of such act may be tried and punished under this Code in the same manner as if such act had been done wholly within the jurisdiction." - Given the above position of the law, the issue which becomes relevant is whether the courts in 15 Uganda have jurisdiction to try a case involving acts, offences or violations which are said to have been committed outside the borders Uganda; such as alleged in the instant application.

From the Applicant's own evidence and submissions of his Counsel, it is quite clear that the two countries of Kenya and Uganda are involved. The alleged acts of torture complained of by the

- Applicant are said to have occurred in Nairobi Kenya when he was allegedly abducted from his 20 rented apartment by about fifteen men in plain clothes, bundled into a motor vehicle and driven while blindfolded and detained in a container for three days. It was while the Applicant was under the alleged detention that the alleged acts of torture took place, to wit; deprivation of food, being beaten/ slapped; the squeezing his genitals while being quizzed to disclose his phone password - and bank accounts, among others. Even assuming that these allegations of torture are true, and 25 that the armed persons who abducted and detained the Applicant were officers of the Uganda Police Force, this court would not be clothed with the necessary jurisdiction to adjudicate over acts of torture that occurred in Nairobi Kenya. The High Court of Uganda is not vested with extraterritorial jurisdiction to entertain cases committed over the territory of Republic of Kenya - 30

$\mathsf{S}$

and other countries. The limited exceptions of offences spelt out in S. 4(2) of the *Penal Code Act* (supra) do not include the offence of torture. This application therefore fails on that issue.

The complaint of the Applicant of acts and or violations within the territory of Uganda, over which this court has the jurisdiction, relates to allegations of the infringement of the Applicant's right to

<sup>5</sup> pcrsonal libcrty. 11 arosc lionr thc timc thc Applicanl and Shccna Kamuhogo wcrc drivcn lrom Malaba in lirroro I)istrict up to Kampala.'l'hc Applicant statcd in his cvidcucc that thcy wcrc briclly dctaincd in a ccll at Nakasoro which was guardcd by armcd mcn drcsscd in [JI'I)I uniform. 'l.hat thcy wcrc thcn lransfcrrcd to Naguru l)olicc Ilcadquartcrs allcr which thcy wcrc takcn lbr <sup>a</sup> scarch at thc Applicant's homc. Iollowing thc scarch, thcy wcrc lakcn to Kira I{oad Policc Stalion and wcrc chargcd on 23'd Scptcmbcr 2024 at lluganda I{oad Chicl Magistratc's Court.

l;rom thc cvaluation of thc cvidcncc on thc issuc, thc Applicanl was dctaincd on Saturday, 2l " Scptcmbcr 2024.|lc was arraigncd at Ilugar.rda l{oad Court on a Monday, 23'd Scptcmbcr 2024. In thc computation of thc 48-hour rulc, wcckcnds arc cxcludcd. 'l'hcrclbrc, thc Constitulional 48 hour rulc was not violatcd, and thc Applicant's right to pcrsonal Iibcrly was not inl-ringed upon. 'l hc Applioation thcrclbrc lails on this issuc too.

'f'hc Applicant also rclicd on thc Iluman Rights Enlorcement Act 2019, to scck thc nullillcation of his criminal 1rial. Oncc again, prcmiscd on thc assumption thal tho acts complaincd o1' conccrning thc Applicanl's abduclion ir.r Nairobi Kcnya and rcndilion to lJganda arc truc, thc I Iigh Court of'tJganda would havc no jurisdiction; lc1 alonc to apply lhc llumon Rights Enforcement

Acl 2019, to dclcnninc acts that occurrcd outsido thc lcrritory o['lJganda. 'l'ho particular law is only applicablc and cnforccablc lirr violations thal ocour within thc tcrritory ol'tJganda. Any violations outsidc thc tcrritory o1'[Jganda would bc adjudicatcd upon by thc law govcrning thc mattcr and applicablc ir, that othcr tcrritory. 20

I{cgarding thc issuc of cxtradilion and rcndition as thoy pcrlain 1o l'acts of this application, thc Applicar.rt allcgcs that togcthcr with onc Shccna Kamuhogo. alicr bcing abduclcd and dctaincd in thc containcr lbr thrcc days and torturcd in Nairobi, thoy wcrc drivcn whilc blindloldcd up 1o Malaba. 'l'hat thcy wcrc thcn rcmovcd liom thc vchiclc thcy travcllcd in and put in anolhcr in which thcy wcrc drivcn up to Kampala. '['hc Applicant contcnds that his rcndition was illcgal as thc l{cspondcrrt did not havc an cxtradition ordcr lrom Kcnya govcrnmcnt in accordancc with thc 25

cxtradition laws of hoth ctlunlrics. 30

> Section l(c) of the lixlrotlition Act pr<>vidcs thal for a pcrson to bc cxtraditcd, thc pcrson should bc accuscd or convictcd ol'ar, cxtradilablc crimc cornrniltcd within thc .iurisdiction ol-any othcr country who is or suspcclcd to bc in anolhcr country. I hc Ac1 lays down an claboratc proccdurc Iirr Lhc cxtrad ilio ich involvcs onc country rcqucsting anothcr country to surrcndcr thc suspcct

,e )<

or convict. It is not necessary to delve into detail of this procedure as it is not relevant to the determination of this matter.

Court has had the benefit of carefully examining at the evidence of both the Applicant and Respondent. It is noted that the Respondent went to great lengths to secure and adduce in evidence the travel history of the Applicant using his passport. The record shows that the Applicant last travelled from Nairobi through Entebbe International Airport in October 2023. A letter from Ministry of Internal Affairs addressed to the Divisional CID Officer attached to the statement of

.

$\mathsf{S}$

## "...he last arrived into the country on 26<sup>th</sup> October, 2023 through **Entebbe** International Airport from Nairobi."

The Applicant in his affidavit averred that he travelled to Nairobi-Kenya normally through the 15 border using his Uganda National I. D card.

D/PC Ruth Tumwikirize dated 18<sup>th</sup> November 2024 - EXH'F' reads in part as follows;

Section 101 of the Evidence Act Cap.8, provides for the burden of proof as follows;

"(1) Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he or she asserts must prove that those facts exist.

## (2) When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person."

This court takes judicial notice of the fact that a person travelling outside Uganda through the gazetted borders, using a national I. D card, is granted an inter-state pass by the Directorate of Citizenship and Immigration Control of Uganda, to cross to another country, and their details captured in the data base. The official website of the Directorate of Immigration clearly elucidates, under a heading; "Inter-State Pass" as follows;

> "Nationals of Uganda, Rwanda and Kenya are FREE to move between these countries with only an ID card i.e. NATIONAL ID instead of their passports. Residents require a work permit to be issued the inter-state pass.

> No visas are needed and no charge is required for inter-state pass. The Inter-State Pass is issued FREE at the border at the point of exit."

- The Applicant alleges that he travelled to Kenya using his national I. D card. However, he does not $\mathsf{S}$ proffer any proof of his allegation. As the person who travelled to Kenya using his national I. D card, he bears the burden to prove his claim. He ought to have adduced in evidence the inter-state pass or at least accessed one from the border he once passed through to Kenya. The Applicant has failed to discharge the burden placed on him under Section 101 of the *Evidence Act*(supra) to prove that he indeed travelled and was in Kenya. Having failed thus, he does not qualify to fit 10 - within the description under Section 1(c) *Extradition Act* (supra). Therefore, even the issue of extradition and rendition would not arise on the facts of this case.

Having found as above, the determination of issues regarding jurisdiction of this court renders the resolution of other issues unnecessary. This application has no merit and the Applicant is not entitled to any of the orders sought. The application is dismissed with costs to the Respondent.

BASHAIJA K. ANDREW **JUDGE** 30<sup>TH</sup> JUNE 2025

15