Background
The High Court of Uganda, sitting in Jinja, delivered a noteworthy judgment in an HIV misdiagnosis and medical negligence case on 18 February 2026.
Facts
In July 2016, the Plaintiff attended the Defendant’s healthcare facility for HIV testing and was diagnosed as HIV positive. Following the diagnosis, he was immediately enrolled on antiretroviral therapy (ARVs), which he continued to take for approximately seven years, experiencing persistent adverse side effects during this period.
In 2022, when the Plaintiff sought benefits from the National Social Security Fund (NSSF), independent PCR testing returned HIV negative results. Subsequent retesting conducted by the Defendant also confirmed a negative result in January 2023.
The Plaintiff alleges that as a consequence of the misdiagnosis, he lost his marriage, employment, and social standing.
Evidence presented before the Court revealed that the Defendant failed to perform quality control checks on testing kits on the material day, altered register entries without countersignature, and was unable to produce standard operating procedures required under national guidelines.
Issues for the Court’s Determination
The Court considered the following issues:
- Whether the Defendant was negligent in conducting the HIV test
- Whether erroneous results were issued
- Whether ARVs were negligently dispensed for seven years
- What remedies were available to the Plaintiff
Court’s Findings and Reasons
Applying established legal principles from existing case law, the Court found that the Defendant breached its duty of care.
The Court held that the Defendant’s conduct was inconsistent with the World Health Organization Guidelines on HIV Testing Services (2015). These guidelines require that materially inconsistent results be reported as inconclusive, with the client advised to return for retesting after 14 days.
Instead, the Defendant used a third test as a “tiebreaker” and proceeded to issue a positive diagnosis.
The Court concluded, on a balance of probabilities, that the Plaintiff was never HIV positive and that the Defendant issued erroneous results in contravention of Section 17 and Section 48 of the HIV and AIDS Prevention and Control Act.
Relying on the English tort law case of Cassidy v Ministry of Health, the Court held that hospitals have a duty to ensure that treatment corresponds to the patient’s actual medical condition. Where the foundational diagnosis is flawed, the continuation of treatment becomes wrongful.
Damages Awarded
The Court awarded the Plaintiff:
- UGX 140,000,000 in general damages
- UGX 50,000,000 in aggravated damages
The award also includes interest at 10% per annum, together with legal costs.
Relevance for South Africa
This judgment carries particular relevance for South Africa, given the country’s significant HIV/AIDS burden and the widespread reliance on healthcare facilities for testing and treatment.
The ruling reinforces that compliance with internal protocols alone does not absolve healthcare providers where internationally recognised best-practice standards are not followed. It highlights the need for consistency in medical testing protocols, unless deviations are justified by specific contextual factors.
The Court’s reliance on statutory provisions governing HIV testing standards also provides a useful comparator for practitioners applying the National Health Act.
Furthermore, the emphasis placed on human dignity resonates strongly with South Africa’s constitutional framework. The Court’s approach to quantifying damages for prolonged medical negligence and suffering may offer valuable guidance for legal practitioners dealing with similar cases.
Article by:
Mtho Maphumulo
Attorney, Adams & Adams
Insurance & Financial Services Department
