Uganda: Mukasa and Another v Attorney-General (2008) AHRLR 248 (UgHC 2008) [35.] The LC1 Chairman stated that there were several complaints in the area. The residents threatened to lynch the applicants. He saw them kissing in a public place after being summoned by the village. It was his duty as the LC1 to prevent the public who were not comfortable with such acts from lynching the applicants. He told court that there have been lynching in his area before and he didn’t want a repeat of the same, that is why he took the action he did to save the applicants from the crowd. There was therefore no breach of any rights as alleged because there was first of all no unlawful entry in any house by the Chairman as alleged or by any other person. Secondly, there was no torture by the servants of government or any other person. Thirdly, there was no incidence at all of any cruel inhuman or degrading treatment by the police or any other person as alleged. Fourthly, there was no search for homosexual tools or persons, undressing of the second applicant and ridicule at Kireka police station or any other place. The evidence adduced by the applicants is therefore insufficient, and the LC Chairman has rebutted it. They opted not cross examine the OC Kireka; so it should be presumed that her evidence is unchallenged. The suit should therefore be dismissed with costs.   [36.] In the unlikely event that it is found that the LC1 Chairman breached any right of the applicants, which is denied, Ms Nabakooza submitted that, under the Local Government Act, (LGA) CAP 243 he is not a servant of government and the respondent is not vicariously liable. They should have sued him separately under section 6 of the LGA. The Attorney-General cannot carry another person’s burden.   [37.] I have carefully perused the affidavits and listened to the submission by both counsel. I respectfully agree with Mr Rwakafuzi, that there was no bar incident at all. The bar incident is a figment of the LC1 Chairman’s imagination calculated to mislead the court and to justify the shabby manner in which the said Chairman treated the applicants particularly the first applicant. He said that at that time, the applicants were in Mayanja’s bar, kissing each other. People were crowded and were shouting saying, ‘Chairman this time assist us, otherwise this time we are going to do something to them’. He arrested them because he wanted to save them from the mobs that wanted to lynch them. No other independent witness, who was part of the mob, was called to testify. Mr Mayanja in whose bar the incident allegedly occurred did not testify either. He did not even state the name of the bar in question. In the circumstances I find it extremely dangerous to rely on the uncorroborated evidence of the LC1 Chairman, who was in my view 13 / 19