Wakilii

Arutu v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition 4 of 1997)

Constitutional Court · [1997] UGCC 12 · 1997 Matter Remitted ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Constitutional petition heard together with a constitutional reference arising from a pending criminal trial in the Magistrates Court
Decision
Petition stayed and the reference remitted to the trial court to continue the criminal proceedings

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 2 Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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 petitioner, a judicial officer charged with abuse of office, brought both a constitutional petition and a reference contending he could not be prosecuted for acts done in the course of judicial proceedings. The Court, following Attorney General v Milton Obote Foundation Ltd, held that the proper course was to remit the reference to the trial court to continue the criminal proceedings and make a reference to the Constitutional Court only if justified on the evidence. The petition was stayed in the meantime.

Facts

The petitioner, a judicial officer, was charged in the Magistrates Court on three counts of abuse of office contrary to section 83(1) of the Penal Code. At trial before a Grade I Magistrate, his counsel objected that he enjoyed immunity from prosecution for acts done in his capacity as a judicial officer under section 15 of the Penal Code and Article 128(4) of the Constitution, and requested a reference to the Constitutional Court. That reference was made on 30 September 1997. The petitioner had earlier, on 9 April 1997, also lodged a constitutional petition raising the same ground. Both the petition and the reference were heard together before the Constitutional Court.

Issues

  1. Whether the constitutional petition should be heard or deferred where related criminal proceedings are pending in the trial court.
  2. Whether the criminal trial should proceed and a constitutional reference be made only if a question of interpretation arises on the evidence.

Orders

  • The petition is deferred.
  • The reference is remitted to the trial court to continue with the proceedings as soon as practicable and to make a reference to the Constitutional Court if justified on the evidence.
  • Constitutional Petition No. 4 of 1997 is stayed in the meantime.

Key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Constitutional References — Question of interpretation arising in a criminal trial
Where a question of constitutional interpretation arises in the course of a criminal trial, the proper course is for the trial court to continue the proceedings and to make a reference to the Constitutional Court only if such a reference is justified on the evidence before it.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Penal Code Act s.83(1)
  • Penal Code Act s.15
  • Constitution Art.128(4)

Cases cited (1)

  • Attorney General v Milton Obote Foundation Ltd & Another (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1992)
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.