The appellate court consequently declared the compensation orders legally unenforceable and set them aside, while leaving the original sentence intact.
The Court of Appeal has overturned a sh200m compensation award granted to a man convicted of aggravated defilement after ruling that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering the Government to compensate him over alleged torture in prison.
The appellate court, however, upheld the sentence imposed on Muloki Henry, who had been sentenced to the period he had already spent on remand, approximately four and a half years, after pleading guilty to aggravated defilement.
In its judgment dated October 14, 2026, a panel comprising Deputy Chief Justice Moses Kazibwe-Kawumi, Justice John Kihika and Justice Stella Alibateese allowed the Government’s appeal and set aside the High Court’s orders, except for the sentence.
The dispute arose during proceedings at the High Court in Mukono on June 8, 2017, when Muloki appeared before Justice Margaret Mutonyi while being carried by fellow inmates and lying down.
The judge inquired about his condition, and Muloki told the court that he had been beaten by a prison warder identified only as Otim while working at Kitalya Prison farm.
After considering the circumstances, the judge concluded that Muloki had been tortured by a government agent and ordered his immediate release, having sentenced him to the period he had already spent on remand.
The judge also ordered the Government to pay him sh200m in compensation for the alleged pain, psychological torture and suffering. She further directed the State to provide him with appropriate medical treatment and meet the legal expenses associated with pursuing the award.
However, the Government challenged the decision, arguing that the judge had made findings of torture without giving the State an opportunity to respond to the allegations. It also contested the compensation award, arguing that the claim had not been properly brought before the court.
In resolving the appeal, the Court of Appeal emphasised that the right to a fair hearing is a fundamental constitutional guarantee that must be respected in judicial proceedings.
The justices noted that the prison officer accused of assaulting Muloki had neither been summoned nor produced before the trial court to respond to the allegations.
The court said the Government had consequently been held liable for the alleged actions of an officer whose identity and conduct had not been properly examined through the proceedings.
The judges further faulted the High Court for directing the Attorney General and Solicitor General to arrange payment of the compensation despite the Attorney General not being a party to the proceedings.
“The appellant was not accorded a fair hearing in a matter that directly affected her legal interests,” the judgment states, referring to the Government’s appeal.
The court ruled that the failure to summon the officer or require his supervisors to produce him resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
On the compensation award, the justices held that the High Court had wrongly relied on provisions of the Judicature Act to grant relief in a criminal case where no civil claim had been properly instituted.
The court explained that the trial judge’s role in the criminal proceedings was to determine Muloki’s guilt and impose a lawful sentence, rather than determine an unfiled civil claim against the Government over alleged misconduct by a prison officer.
Land Dealer, KCCA Officials Remanded Over Alleged Munyonyo Land Fraud
It added that Muloki could have pursued compensation through a properly instituted civil suit or, at the time, through a constitutional application seeking redress for the alleged violation of his rights.
The justices also rejected reliance on sections 125 and 126 of the Trial on Indictments Act, explaining that the provisions allow courts to order a convicted person to compensate a victim for material loss or personal injury arising from the offence.
They said the provisions did not authorise compensation against the State for injuries allegedly inflicted by a government agent and unrelated to the offence for which the accused had been convicted.
The appellate court consequently declared the compensation orders legally unenforceable and set them aside, while leaving the original sentence intact.
