Ssempebwa v Kampala Capital City Authority (Miscellaneous Cause 146 of 2024) [2025] UGHCCD 43 (26 February 2025)

**THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA**

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA**

**(CIVIL DIVISION)**

**MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 146 OF 2024**

**JOHN SSEMPEBWA :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPLICANT**

**VERSUS**

**KAMPALA CAPITAL CITY AUTHORITY :::::::::::::::::::::RESPONDENT**

**BEFORE: HON. JUSTICE SSEKAANA MUSA**

**RULING**

The applicant filed this application under Articles 50 (1), (2) & (4), 24, 44(a), and 45 of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, Sections 3(1) &(2), 4(a) & (b) of the Human Rights Enforcement Act, Section 39 of the Local Governments Act, Section 7(2) of the Kampala Capital City Act, the Kampala City Road Naming Guidelines, 2017, Rules 5(1)(a) & (d), 5(2)(a) & (b), 6, 7(1), and 8 of the Judicature (Fundamental and Other Human Rights and Freedoms) (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2019, and Section 33 of the Judicature Act seeking for orders, declarations and other reliefs to the effect that;

1. *A declaration that the continued honoring and memorialization of particular British colonial officials and/or officials of the Imperial British East African Company (IBEAC) by naming public roads after them in Uganda's capital city violates he applicant’s and other Ugandans' right to dignity, right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and other human rights and freedoms guaranteed by Articles 24, 44(a), and 45 of the Constitution of Uganda, 1995, as well as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), and the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (ACHPR) to which Uganda is a party.* 2. *A declaration that retaining names of colonial officials on public roads is offensive and hurtful to the dignity and well-being of Ugandans because it glorifies individuals responsible for gross human rights abuses, is insensitive to the suffering of individuals, families and communities under colonial rule, reinforces and perpetuates a harmful legacy of oppression, cruel and inhumane treatment, impunity and racial or cultural supremacy.* 3. *A declaration that the continued retention of the colonial officials’ names on public infrastructure in Kampala Capital City is a constant reminder of the historical injustices inflicted upon Ugandans during British colonial rule, perpetuating intergenerational trauma and subjugation and it undermines the applicant’s and other Ugandans’ right to self-determination and sovereignty. It symbolized the continuation of a legacy of colonial conquest and occupation.* 4. *An order doth issue directing the respondent to immediately remove from all public roads and streets within its jurisdiction the names of colonial administrators, particularly Lord Fredrick LUGARD, captain William, Sir Henry Colville, Colonel Trevor Ternan, Sir Henry (Harry) Hamilton Johnstone, the King’s African Rifles (KAR), Sir Gerald Herbert Portal and others who were instrumental in conquest, occupation and control of the Uganda protectorate and implemented laws, regulations, policies, expeditions and practiced that resulted in gross human rights violations against Ugandans* 5. *An order doth issue directing the respondent to investigate and, where found appropriate and justifiable, remove names of the British colonial rulers, beneficiaries, administrators, military officials and/ or officials of the former Imperial British East African Company (IBEAC) that violate the applicant’s and other Ugandan’s inherent dignity, human rights and freedoms and those that perpetuate a nefarious legacy of colonialism within its jurisdiction including Queen Alexandrina Victoria, King Edward VII, King George VI, Queen Elizabeth Mary Windsor II, the House of Windsor, Sir Ernest J. Lennox Berkeley and Sir William Mackinnon.* 6. *An order directing the respondent to take administrative, legislative and other measures to enforce rules for the renaming of streets other public places to other appropriate names that honor individuals that promote the dignity and fundamental rights of the applicant and other Ugandans and those that promote community harmony, unity and who exemplify the culture, heritage and values of the people of Uganda.* 7. *An injunction doth issue prohibiting the respondent from naming any new public roads of infrastructure after colonial figures known to have committed or benefitted from human rights violations or atrocities against Ugandans and;* 8. *Any other relief that the court deems just and equitable.* 9. *Costs of the application be provided for.*

The application is supported by grounds stated in the 3 affidavits of the *John Ssempebwa*-a historian, human rights activist and proprietor Ssemagulu Royal Museum., *Prof. Samwiri Lwanga Lunyiigo (80)*-a Professor of Uganda History and author of several books on Uganda’s history, and *Dr. Busingye Kabumba*-Senior Lecturer of Law at Makerere University School of Law and a constitutional history and public law scholar and Acting Director of HURIPEC at Makerere University which briefly state that;

1. The respondent used and continues to use several public roads in Kampala which carry the names of individuals like Lord Fredrick Lugard, Captain William, Sir Edward Colville, Colonel Trevor Ternan, Sir Henry(Harry) Hamilton Johnstone, the Kings African Rifles (KAR), Sir Gerald Herbert Portal and other like, Queen Alexandrina Victoria, King Edward VII, King George VI, Queen Elizabeth Mary Windsor II, the House of Windsor, Sir Ernest j. Lennox Berkeley, and Sir William Mackinnon. Some of these people benefitted from or were responsible for heinous crimes including torture, cruel, degrading and inhuman treatment, discrimination and subjugation of the peoples of Uganda.

1. That the history of the imposition of British Colonial rule in Uganda and the record of colonial officials and administrators responsible for the conquest, occupation and imposition of violent, oppressive and exploitative imperial regime in Uganda is well documented. The honouring of the said colonial figures also distorts history, glorifying colonial offices and British monarchy while ignoring the harm and exploitation they inflicted upon local populations. 2. That the honouring of the said colonial agents is also symbolic of ongoing oppressions and perpetuates the notion that colonialism is prevalent and valid many decades after Uganda attained it independence. It undermines the sense of independence from British colonial rule and the Ugandan’s right to self-determination. It symbolises and perpetuates a nefarious legacy of violence, domination, control, abuse, impunity and colonial oppression within Kampala and other parts of Uganda which should come to an end. It indicates a lack of serious decolonisation efforts by the respondent. 3. That on 28th June 2019, the Lord Mayor of Kampala City was requested to commence the process of renaming streets with offending colonial legacy names. On 11th November 2021, the Executive Director of Kampala Capital City Authority was further requested for a meeting to discuss the removal of the said offensive names, however, to-date nothing has been done to remedy the situation. 4. That on 8th June, 2020 a petition was signed by 5786 individuals to decolonise and rename streets in Kampala and other landmarks in Uganda to Speaker of Parliament and Kampala Capital city Authority. On 7th September 2021, Rt Hon Rebecca A. Kadaga the former Speaker wrote to Hon. Ruhakana Rugunda the Prime Minister with a request to address the petition. On 11th November 2021, Apollo N Makubuya on behalf of the petitioners, raised this matter with the Executive Director of Kampala Capital City Authority, but nothing substantive resulted from these interactions. 5. That on 25th June 2020 another petition of 5,200 people was made to the President, Speaker of Parliament, Minister of Gender, Labour and Social Development, Minister of Kampala Capital City Authority and Lord Mayor of Kampala Capital City and the petition was signed by Apollo N Makubuya, Justice James Ogoola, Professor Lwanga Lunyingo, Hon. Stephen Birahwa Mukitale Adyeeri and Hon Medard Segona.

The respondent filed its affidavit in reply deponed by Zabali Flavia Musisi, the supervisor physical planning- information management systems of the respondent responsible for city addressing, road naming and building numbering who stated that the application was premature, incompetent, fatally and incurably defective and an abuse of court process. She stated that it raises controversies related to interpretation of Article 24, 44 (a) and 45 of the Constitution and are not merely matters of enforcement of rights and freedoms by the High Court under Article 50 of the Constitution. the respondent deponent stated that the application is barred in law by the political doctrine question and that the applicant never initiated any prior action/ process in accordance with the Kampala City Road Naming Guidelines of 2017 to rename streets to warrant this application for enforcement of rights and freedoms.

The respondent stated that it is by law mandated to identify streets and other public places by assigning names to them and cause names to be exhibited on posts, pillars or to be painted. It was deponed that the respondent has not received a formal road naming proposal form in accordance with the Guidelines to rename streets with offending colonial legacy names from the applicant inclusive of the proposed new names. It was further stated that the alleged acts of torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment said to have been committed by particular British colonial officials and/ or officials of the imperial British East African Company after whom some roads in Kampala were named, were committed before the applicant was born or existed.

It was also stated that the applicant has not demonstrated how the naming of roads after the British Colonial Officials of the Imperial British East African Company has inflicted direct severe psychological or substantive physical harm upon him. Furthermore, the applicant did not demonstrate how the rights of individuals, families and communities whose right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment has been infringed by naming of roads after the British colonial officials. She stated that it is within the respondent’s rights to name some roads after the British colonial officials and/ or officials of the IBEACO to preserve history.

The respondent therefore stated that the prayers for compensation, orders and declarations sought by the applicant are baseless, unfounded in law and unwarranted and that prayed that this court dismisses the application with costs to the respondent.

***Issues for Determination.***

The parties proposed the following issues for determination by this court.

1. *Whether this suit raises issues for constitutional interpretation and enforcement of Human Rights?* 2. *Whether the naming of roads stated offends the applicant's Human Rights and freedoms enshrined in Article 24 of the Constitution?* 3. *Whether the applicant has the authority to remove the offending road names and rename the roads stated in the petition?* 4. *Whether the applicant is entitled to the remedies sought in the application.*

***Representation***

The applicant was represented by *Counsel Apollo Makubuya* and *Counsel Timothy Lugayizi* whereas the respondent was represented by *Counsel Oyo David.*

The parties were ordered to file written submissions and accordingly filed the same. These submissions were considered by this court.

**DETERMINATION**

***Whether this application raises issues for constitutional interpretation and enforcement of human rights?***

Counsel submitted that the applicant's right to dignity, right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and other human rights and freedoms is guaranteed by Articles 24, 44(a), and 45 of the Constitution of Uganda, 1995, as well as under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), and the African Charter on Human and Peoples 'Rights (ACHPR) to which Uganda is a party. He submitted that the Sections 3(1) & (2) and 4(a) & (b) of the Human Rights Act under which this application is premised. empower this Honourable Court to enforce human rights and provide remedies in cases of violation.

The submitted that the applicant herein seeks redress on the basis that his rights or freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution have been infringed and not interpretation of Articles 24, 44(a), and 45 of the Constitution of Uganda. Rather he seeks declarations that memorialisation of the outlined colonial era officers through road names violates his human rights, dignity and other freedoms. He therefore stated that the application therefore raises significant issues for human rights enforcement.

Counsel cited Article 137 (3) of the Constitution which provides the operative provisions under which an individual can seek redress from the Constitutional Court. He stated that the test as to whether a petition/application raises issues for constitutional interpretation was laid out in the case of *Kabagambe v Uganda Electricity Board Constitutional Petition 2 of 1999* wherein the Constitutional Court, referring to the decision of *Attorney General v David Tinyefunza Const. App. No. 1 of 1997* stated that; for the constitutional court to have jurisdiction, the petition must show on the face of it, that interpretation of a provision of the constitution is required.

He submitted that in the instant case, the application neither seeks the interpretation of any rights nor does it allege that any provisions are inconsistent with the constitution. That the application raises issues related to the enforcement of Articles 24, 44 (a) and 45 of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda which can properly be determined by this Honourable Court. He therefore prayed that this court finds that the application raises issues for human rights enforcement and not constitutional interpretation as averred by the Respondent.

Counsel for the respondent submitted that the applicant's petition does not merely allege a violation but raises substantial constitutional questions about individual dignity, historical identity, and Uganda's post-colonial values. He stated that the applicant's challenge to retaining colonial names on roads in Kampala raises critical questions about the interpretation and scope of Articles 44 (a), and 45 of the Constitution. He further cited Article 137 (3) which grants the Constitutional Court the mandate to interpret the Constitution whenever there is an alleged inconsistency between an action or policy and a constitutional provision. Counsel submitted that given the nature of the applicant's claims, the interpretation by the Constitutional Court is necessary to determine if the maintaining of colonial names is consistent with the Constitution.

He also relied on *Kabagambe v. Uganda Electricity Board (supra)* cited by the applicant that the Court affirmed that a petition requiring constitutional interpretation must clearly show, on its face, that an issue of constitutional rights is involved.

Counsel stated that the applicant at paragraphs 5 and 6 of his affidavit points to the deeply personal impact of these colonial-era names which he describes as "depressing, distasteful, incongruous and bearing negative meanings for me and other Ugandans..." That the applicant further claims that the names "carry painful memories and constantly offend his dignity, self-respect, and self-worth." Counsel therefore stated that this language reveals the applicant's subjective distress; yet constitutional interpretation requires an objective standard to determine whether these experiences amount to "inhuman or degrading treatment" under Article 24.

Counsel submitted that where there have been allegations of degrading treatment, the Court has established that an objective test must be applied. He relied on *Charles Onyango Obbo & Andrew Mwenda v. Attorney General CA No. 2 of 2002* where the Court stressed that personal sentiments alone are insufficient to substantiate claims of degrading treatment. The violation must be assessed against a universal, objective threshold. Thus, the question arises as to whether historical colonial names, though distressing to the applicant, objectively meet the criteria for degrading treatment under Article 24.

Counsel further submitted that the application raises an issue of balancing competing constitutional interests. He stated that the applicant's individual right to dignity must be weighed against Uganda's broader interests in preserving its multicultural heritage and varied history. He stated that the preamble to the 1995 Constitution recognizes the struggles against the forces of tyranny, oppression and exploitation and also recalls our history which has been characterised by political and constitutional instability.

That the respondent, through its affidavit deposed by Zabali Flavia Musisi, mainly at paragraphs 12, 14 and 15 emphasizes that naming roads after colonial figures serves to preserve Uganda's "long and varied history of human settlement" and is "reflective of a multi-cultural society," as required by the Kampala City Road Naming Guidelines 2017 and the 1995 Constitution. This raises a constitutional balancing question: does the preservation of these historical names infringe upon the Applicant's right to dignity, or is it a permissible expression of Uganda's commitment to a diverse cultural identity?

Counsel further submitted that the application raises issues of interpretation of Articles 24, 44(a), and 45 in the context of cultural identity. Article 45 of the Constitution acknowledges rights not explicitly listed in the Constitution, providing the Court with an avenue to interpret whether the preservation of Uganda's historical and cultural identity includes retaining colonial names. Counsel therefore submitted that interpretation is therefore required to clarify whether such an obligation exists and how it interacts with the applicant's rights to dignity and freedom from inhuman treatment.

Counsel further submits that the respondent raises issues of discrimination contrary to Article 21 of the Constitution when they shut their eyes to African "dictators" and native Kings, Chiefs, Regents, Collaborators etc. who unquestionably engaged in gross human rights abuses and/or perpetuated a harmful legacy of oppression, cruel and inhumane treatment, impunity, and promoted racial or cultural supremacy and a nefarious legacy of colonialism against native Ugandans i.e. Robert Mugabe, Siad Barre, Mobutu Sese Seko, Muammar Gaddafi, Mwanga II and Semei Kakungulu. We take cognizance that the applicants have not addressed this particular issue.

Counsel therefore submitted that the applicant's claim raises significant constitutional questions that require interpretation by the Constitutional Court to allow for a thorough interpretation of the relevant constitutional provisions, enabling a balanced judgment that respects Uganda's historical identity while safeguarding individual rights.

***Analysis***

***Article 137(1) & (3) (a) & (b) of the Constitution*** provides that:

1. *Any question as to the interpretation of this Constitution shall be determined by the Court of Appeal sitting as the constitutional court.* 2. *……………* 3. *A person who alleges that –* 4. *An Act of Parliament or any other law or anything in or done under the authority of any law; or* 5. *Any act or omission by any person or authority, is inconsistent with or in contravention of a provision of this Constitution, may petition the constitutional court for a declaration to that effect, and for redress where appropriate.*

The Court of Appeal in the case of ***Mifumi (U) Ltd & 12 Ors vs Attorney General & Anor Const. Pet. No. 12 of 2007***, while relying on the case of ***Ismael Serugo vs Kampala City Council & Attorney General Const. Appeal No. 2 of 1998*** held that it is well settled that in order to invoke the powers of this Court under Article 137, the petition must show on the face of it, that interpretation of a provision of the Constitution is required. It is not enough merely to allege that a constitutional provision has been violated.

The matter before this Court is for enforcement of the applicant’s human rights as the continued retention of the colonial officials’ names on public infrastructure in Kampala Capital City which is a constant reminder of the historical injustices inflicted upon Ugandans during British colonial rule. From the court record, it is clear that the applicant the application neither seeks the interpretation of any rights nor does it allege inconsistency of the provisions of the constitution. The applicant rather seeks this court’s determination on the enforcement of human rights which he alleges have been violated by the respondent.

**Enforcement of human rights:**

The mere fact of the involvement of the question of fundamental human rights does not automatically entitle the applicant to approach the court by the fundamental human rights procedure. It must form the main plank of the action. The court is to determine whether the matter brought before it is really one of fundamental human rights. Enforcement of rights should be the main claim and not an accessory claim. See: ***University of Ilorin v Oluwadare (2006) 6-7 SC p 154; (2006) AFWLR (pt. 338) p 747 at 755***

The fundamental human rights ought to be construed broadly and liberally in favour of those on whom the rights have been confirmed by the Constitution. It is the responsibility of the High Court as custodian of justice and the Constitution and rule of law to maintain the social balance by interfering where necessary for the sake of justice and refusing to interfere where it is against the social interest and public good.

In the case of ***Charles Harry Twagira v AG & 2 Others SCCA No. 4 of 2007***, Justice Mulenga noted as follows;

*“Article 50 of the Constitution proclaims the infringement of the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution to be justifiable. However, the right to apply to a competent court for redress on the ground of such infringement must be construed in the context of the whole Constitution generally and in the context of Chapter 4 in particular. In the instant case, the appellant’s right to bring such an application must be construed together with the right and indeed obligation that the State has to prosecute the appellant in a competent court, for any offence he was reasonably suspected to have committed. Neither right could be exercised to defeat the other….”*

The applicant alleges violation of his human rights to dignity, right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and other human rights and freedoms is guaranteed by Articles 24, 44(a), and 45 of the Constitution of Uganda by the respondent. He stated in his affidavit under paragraph 5, 6 and 7 that the celebration, memorialisation of these former British colonial officials is tortuous, hurtful, distressful and amounts to inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment to him and the members of his community. However, the applicant does not adduce any evidence whatsoever of the tortious acts made against him and his community nor any violations that were caused to him as a result of the names given to the public roads in Kampala.

The Supreme Court in the case of ***Salvatori Abuki v. Attorney General Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1998*** emphasized the importance of human dignity and freedom from degrading treatment as being non-derogable under the Constitution of Uganda. It also emphasized the necessity of showing demonstrable harm to substantiate a claim for a violation of rights. While the applicant’s sentiments as expressed in the affidavits in support of the application are valid, they do not meet the standard of what constitutes violation of human right to dignity, freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and other human rights. This court in the case of ***Nsereko Musa vs Attorney General & 15 Ors Misc. Cause No. 386 of 2020*** noted that in the circumstances, the action in question must be of a nature that goes beyond ordinary suffering and or humiliation. This means that not every instance of suffering or humiliation will automatically trigger the protection and enforcement of human rights by courts. Instead, the action must be severe enough to exceed the normal hardships or indignities that individuals may experience in their daily lives.

I concur with the respondent’s submission that the determination of whether treatment is "cruel, inhuman, or degrading" necessitates an objective standard and should not be based on the subjective feelings of the applicant. The Applicant's claim is rooted in his historical knowledge and personal interpretation of events that occurred long before his birth.

According to ***sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act***, the burden of proof lies upon a party who wishes court to believe in the existence of facts and the standard of proof is on a balance of probabilities. See; ***Maruri Venkata & 2 Ors vs Bank of India (U) Ltd, HCCS No.804 of 2018***, where it was held that the burden of proof in civil proceedings normally lies upon the plaintiff or claimant. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. In this case, the Applicant has a duty to prove that the facts asserted exist and under this duty, the applicant has to satisfy this court the allegations that his rights to freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment were violated by the Respondent.

The court will not lightly presume violation of rights in public institution and will make allowance an assumption that the public institution is acting in accordance with the law since they are enjoined to protect the rights and uphold the Constitution.

In the circumstances, I find that this application does not raise issues of constitutional interpretation and neither does it raise issues of enforcement of human rights of the applicants as against the respondent.

But this court takes note of the grievance raised by the applicant although it is not directly linked to human rights violations, it needs to be addressed by the respondent. It is over 62 years when Uganda attained its independence in 1962 from the colonialists through self-determination. The capital has continued to use the colonial names and this ought to be addressed through a gradual process of choosing appropriate names in honour of persons relevant to Uganda’s historical transformation since independence. A proper process should be initiated by the respondent in consultation with the general public in accordance with Paragraph 7 of Part A of the Third Schedule of the Kampala Capital City Authority Act and Kampala City Authority Naming Guidelines 2017 to provide a framework for naming and renaming of roads.

This court therefore, issues an Order directing the respondent to take administrative, legislative and other measures to enforce the rules for the re-naming of streets, roads and other public places to other appropriate names that promote community harmony, unity or which exemplify the culture, heritage and values of the people of Uganda.

The application is determined in those terms and I make no order as to costs.

I so order.

***SSEKAANA MUSA***

***JUDGE***

***The ruling has been delivered this……………day of February 2025***