Twala Caroline and Others v Director of Public Prosecutions [2026] UGCA 116

Court of Appeal · 2026 Appeal Struck Out ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Criminal appeal to the Court of Appeal against a High Court order dismissing an application for revision of a trial magistrate's findings

Decision

Appeal struck out for want of jurisdiction

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Court of Appeal addressed a preliminary objection that the appellants had no right of appeal against the High Court's revision order. It held that appellate jurisdiction is a creature of statute and there is no inherent appellate jurisdiction; a right of appeal exists only where a statute expressly provides for it. Following the Supreme Court's binding decision in Faustine Ntambara v Benon Sebujisho, and finding that neither the Judicature Act, the Civil Procedure Act, nor sections 48 and 50 of the Criminal Procedure Code Act create an appeal from a revision decision, the Court held that revision decisions are final. It therefore had no jurisdiction and struck out the appeal.

Facts

The appellants were charged before the Chief Magistrate of Entebbe with malicious damage to property and criminal trespass in Criminal Case No. 84 of 2017. During the trial, the magistrate found that the appellants had a case to answer. Dissatisfied with that finding and the manner in which the proceedings had been conducted, the appellants applied to the High Court (Revision Cause No. 22 of 2019) for revision, contending that the proceedings were tainted with various irregularities and illegalities. The High Court, per Justice Jane Frances Abodo, held that no injustice had been occasioned to the appellants and found that granting the application would amount to an abuse of court process, particularly because the trial had not yet been concluded. The application was dismissed. The appellants, being dissatisfied with the revision orders, appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Issues

Whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against a decision of the High Court made in the exercise of its revisionary jurisdiction.

Orders

Appeal struck out.

Key headnotes

Appeals — Appellate Jurisdiction — Creature of Statute

Appellate jurisdiction is a creature of statute; there is no inherent appellate jurisdiction, and a right of appeal exists only where a statute expressly provides for it.

Revision — Finality — No Appeal from High Court Revision Order

No appeal lies to the Court of Appeal from a decision of the High Court made in the exercise of its revisionary jurisdiction; such a decision is final, as no statute prescribes an appeal from a revision order.

Jurisdiction — Want of Jurisdiction — Effect

A court that acts without jurisdiction acts illegally, and any judgment and the proceedings founded thereon are a nullity; where no express statutory right of appeal exists, the appeal must be struck out.

Legislation cited (7)

Constitution of Uganda Article 134(2)
Constitution of Uganda Article 120(1)
Judicature Act Cap 16 s.10
Civil Procedure Act s.83
Criminal Procedure Code Act Cap 122 s.48
Criminal Procedure Code Act Cap 122 s.50
Criminal Procedure Code Act Cap 122 s.50(5)

Cases cited (5)

Faustine Ntambara v Benon Sebujisho (SCCA No. 08 of 2024)
Eseza Byakika v National Social Security Fund (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2024)
Desai v Warsama [1964] EA 351
Kaggwa Hannington and 5 Others v Prosecutor (Revision Cause No. 005 of 2018)
Charles Harry Nagira v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 03 of 2003)

Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.