Bakubye & Another v Uganda (Criminal Application 10 of 2018)

Supreme Court · [2018] UGSC 75 · 2018 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Application to the Supreme Court for review of its own judgment in a criminal appeal

Decision

Application for review dismissed

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 Supreme Court dismissed an application to review its own judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2015. While the Court has inherent jurisdiction under rules 2(2) and 35 to correct accidental slips, omissions and overlooked matters, that power is exercised sparingly given the finality of the Court's decisions. The complaint that the trial judgment had been cited in another case before delivery was already addressed in the impugned judgment and did not violate the right to a fair trial, as an undelivered opinion has no legal value. The applicants pointed to no evidence that the remand period had been ignored, the onus being on them. The Court deprecated the growing trend of using review applications as disguised appeals.

Facts

The two applicants were jointly indicted, tried and convicted by the High Court at Kampala of aggravated robbery and murder under the Penal Code Act. They were sentenced to 30 years and 40 years imprisonment on the respective counts, to run consecutively. On appeal the Court of Appeal altered the sentences to run concurrently, and the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal's findings in Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2015. The applicants then applied to the Supreme Court for review of its judgment, contending that the Court had overlooked grave omissions and material facts. They complained that the trial court's draft judgment had been referred to as authority by a judge in another matter, Uganda v Lomanio Paul Darlington and 3 others, before it was delivered, and that the period they spent on remand had not been deducted from their custodial sentences contrary to Article 23(8) of the Constitution.

Issues

Whether the Supreme Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to review its own judgment on account of alleged errors, omissions and overlooked material matters.
Whether the citing of the trial court's undelivered judgment in another case violated the applicants' right to a fair trial under Article 28 of the Constitution.
Whether failure to deduct the period spent on remand from the applicants' sentences justified review of the Court's decision.

Orders

Application dismissed.

Key headnotes

Review — Inherent Jurisdiction of the Final Court — Finality of Decisions

Although the Supreme Court has inherent jurisdiction under rules 2(2) and 35 of its Rules to review its judgments to correct accidental slips, omissions and overlooked material matters, that power is exercised sparingly because the decisions of the final court of appeal must be regarded with a modicum of permanence.

Fair Trial — Status of an Undelivered Judgment

An opinion qualifies as a judgment or decision of a court only after it has been pronounced or delivered; before pronouncement it is a mere draft with no legal value, and its irregular citation in another case does not violate an accused's right to a fair trial.

Review — Burden of Proof on the Applicant

The onus lies on an applicant for review to adduce evidence supporting the asserted errors or omissions; a bare allegation, such as that the period spent on remand was not considered, cannot succeed where the court record dispels any doubt.

Article 126(2)(e) — Substantive Justice Without Undue Regard to Technicalities

Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution is unavailing to an applicant who has not shown any failure to administer substantive justice at any stage of the proceedings.

Review — Abuse of Process — Disguised Appeals

Applications for review must not be used as a roundabout way of appealing the decisions of the final court of appeal; the practice is a waste of time and resources and should be discouraged in the interest of finality of litigation.

Legislation cited (9)

Constitution of Uganda art.126(2)(e)
Constitution of Uganda art.28
Constitution of Uganda art.23(8)
Rules of the Supreme Court rule 2(2)
Rules of the Supreme Court rule 35
Penal Code Act s.285
Penal Code Act s.286(2)
Penal Code Act s.188
Penal Code Act s.189

Cases cited (2)

Bakubye and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2015)
Uganda v Lomanio Paul Darlington and 3 others (Criminal Session Case No. 019 of 2011)

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.