Wakilii

ACP Bakaleke Siraje v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No.551 of 2018)

High Court · [2018] UGHCCD 266 · 2018 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to proceed ex parte and for temporary injunction arising from judicial review proceedings challenging criminal prosecution
Decision
Application for leave to proceed ex parte and for temporary injunction dismissed with costs to the respondent

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains 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 High Court dismissed an application for leave to proceed ex parte and for a temporary injunction restraining the Director of Public Prosecutions from prosecuting the applicant. The court held that the respondent had shown interest in participating in the proceedings and it would be unfair to shut them out. On the temporary injunction, the court held that injunctions against public authorities exercising constitutional functions must be granted with caution, that public interest considerations are paramount, and that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case having suppressed material facts and provided no evidence to support his claim that the DPP acted without evidence.

Outcome

Application for leave to proceed ex parte and for temporary injunction dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

The applicant, a police officer (ACP Bakaleke Siraje), instituted judicial review proceedings against the Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 212 of 2018) challenging the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions to prosecute him. The DPP had instituted criminal charges against the applicant for abuse of office, conspiracy to defraud, kidnapping or abducting with intent to confine, and conspiracy to commit a felony. The Anti-Corruption Court issued criminal summons requiring the applicant to appear on 5 October 2018. The applicant then brought this application seeking leave to proceed ex parte in the judicial review proceedings and a temporary injunction restraining the respondent from prosecuting him until the judicial review application was determined. The applicant alleged that the DPP had acted without any evidence and on directions of a third party, leading to his suspension. The respondent opposed the application, stating that the DPP had properly exercised constitutional powers, had perused the case file and determined there was sufficient evidence to prosecute, and that a civil court could not determine criminal liability through judicial review.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant should be granted leave to proceed ex parte against the respondent.
  2. Whether a temporary injunction should issue against the respondent restraining prosecution of the applicant pending determination of the judicial review application.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Public Authorities — Exercise of Caution
Injunctions against public authorities executing public utilities or implementing government projects must be granted with caution and circumspection, with public interest being a paramount and relevant consideration in either granting or refusing a temporary injunction.
Administrative Law — Director of Public Prosecutions — Constitutional Powers — Injunctions Restraining Exercise
Courts should be loath to grant injunctions restraining the Director of Public Prosecutions from exercising constitutional powers under Article 120(3) of the Constitution, as the DPP exercises these powers in public interest, in the interest of the administration of justice, and to prevent abuse of legal process.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Prima Facie Case — Burden of Proof
The burden is on the applicant seeking a temporary injunction to satisfy the court by leading evidence that he has a prima facie case in his favour, but a prima facie case should not be confused with a case proved to the hilt; it is no part of the court's function at this stage to try and resolve conflicts of evidence or decide complicated questions of fact and law.
Civil Procedure — Ex Parte Applications — Fairness and Natural Justice
Where a respondent has filed an affidavit in reply showing interest in taking part in proceedings and providing reasons for any delay in responding, it would be unfair and contrary to the interests of justice to grant leave to proceed ex parte and shut the respondent out of the proceedings.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (6)

  • Erisa Rainbow Musoke v Ahamoda Kezala [1987] HCB 81
  • Kiyimba Kaggwa v Haji Abdul Nasser Katende [1985] HCB 43
  • American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 336
  • Elias Lukwago v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 237 of 2013)
  • Daniel Mukwaya v Administrator General (H.C.C.S. No. 630 of 1993)
  • Commodity Trading Industries v Uganda Maize Trading Industries [2001-2005] HCB 119

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

ACP Bakaleke Siraje v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No.551 of 2018) [2018] UGHCCD 266 (11 October 2018)
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.