Jinja man sues TASO for Shs 150m over erroneous HIV test 

A man in Jinja district has sued The AIDS Support Organisation (TASO) over an alleged erroneous HIV diagnosis that he says led to years of unnecessary treatment.

John Wataka is seeking damages of up to Shs 150 Million from Uganda’s largest and oldest NGO dedicated to the HIV/AIDS response.

He claims he was erroneously diagnosed with the virus back in 2016 and forced to commence Antiretroviral treatment for over 7 years, only to discover that he was negative.

In the main civil suit filed in 2023, Wataka accuses TASO of negligence in HIV testing and care. He claims that in 2016, TASO issued him with incorrect HIV-positive results at its Jinja facility and placed him on antiretroviral drugs (ARVs).

According to court records, Wataka says he remained on the medication for about seven years until 2022, when he discovered that he was, in fact, HIV negative. 

He is seeking general damages amounting to Shs150 million, among other remedies, arguing that the prolonged treatment caused him physical, emotional and psychological harm.

TASO denies wrongdoing and maintains that the claim relates to matters governed by the HIV and AIDS Prevention and Control Act, 2015.

Last year, the High Court dismissed TASO’s attempt to block the case on jurisdictional grounds.

The ruling was delivered by the High Court in Jinja, in response to an application filed by TASO challenging the court’s authority to hear the matter

In its application, TASO argued that disputes arising from HIV testing, counselling and care fall under the jurisdiction of the Chief Magistrate’s Court or Magistrate Grade One Court, not the High Court. The organisation asked the court to dismiss the suit for lack of jurisdiction.

TASO also questioned the competence of Wataka’s affidavit, claiming it was defective and should be struck out.

Wataka opposed the application, insisting that the High Court has unlimited original jurisdiction under the Constitution and that his claim, which sounds in negligence, is civil in nature and not restricted by the HIV law.

The court ruled that the case is based on alleged negligence, which is tortious and not criminal, and therefore not covered by the HIV and AIDS Prevention and Control Act. The judge held that the Act does not override the High Court’s constitutional jurisdiction.

The court further found that the value of the damages sought justified filing the case in the High Court and allowed a supplementary affidavit to cure procedural defects, emphasising substantive justice over technicalities.

The application was dismissed, clearing the way for the main suit to proceed. Costs will be decided at the conclusion of the case.