The High Court in Jinja has faulted The Aids Support Organization (TASO) Jinja Branch with negligence and in contravention of section L7 of the HIV and AIDS Prevention and Control Act, after it issued a healthy man wrong HIV test results showing he was positive in 2016, yet he was negative.
Lady Justice Joanita Bushara in a ruling dated February 18th 2026, ordered TASO to pay Wataka John UGX 190 million in damages for seven years of unnecessary medication, loss of marriage, loss of employment, social isolation and psychological trauma.
Court found that TASO, a center of excellence in HIV care, negligently diagnosed Wataka as HIV positive in July 2016 under number JIN:1604268 and placed him on antiretroviral therapy for approximately seven years, and only in 2023 acknowledged that he was HIV negative.
Wataka got a second lease at life when he sought to access NSSF benefits under a scheme for HIV positive persons in 2022, he was however left astounded after NSSF conducted independent tests, including PCR, which returned HIV- negative results.
It was then that Wataka, through his lawyers led by Ms Pheobe Tumwebaze of Kian Associated Advocates in Kampala, sued TASO for misdiagnosis, saying that he lost his marriage, employment, and social standing and suffered grave psychological harm.
In her ruling, Justice Bushara observed that the plaintiff had endured seven years of unnecessary medication, loss of marriage, loss of employment, social isolation and psychological trauma.
The court also considered the plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages. Referring to the principles set out in Rookes v Barnard [1964] AC 1129, Justice Bushara held that exemplary damages are warranted where a defendant’s conduct demonstrates a contumelious disregard of a person’s rights.
She found that TASO’s conduct following disclosure of the negative test results was dismissive and lacked remorse, justifying further compensation. The court accordingly awarded Shs50 million as aggravated damages.
Justice Bushara further noted that the case illustrates the peril of substituting protocol for professional conscience.
“Guidelines are servants of medicine, not its masters. When a person’s liberty, family life, and identity are at stake, a specialist institution must exercise vigilance beyond the routine. The Plaintiff entrusted his life to the Defendant; that trust was betrayed by systems that valued procedure over person” she said.
