Wakilii

Aloyoto Harriet and Others v Uganda (Criminal Revision Application No. 1 of 2023)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 587 · 2025 Revision Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal revision application from Patongo Magistrate Grade 1 Court order requiring compensation payment following discharge of theft charges
Decision
Trial magistrate's compensation order revised and set aside; money paid by applicants to be refunded

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 revised and set aside the trial magistrate's consent order requiring applicants to pay compensation of UGX 1,000,000 to Adilang Senior Secondary School following their discharge on theft charges. The court held that the compensation order was made irregularly and without legal basis because: (1) it was extracted without the participation or signature of the accused persons, depriving them of fair hearing contrary to article 28(1) of the Constitution; (2) compensation in criminal theft cases can only be ordered under section 251 of the Penal Code Act following a guilty plea, conviction and sentence, none of which occurred; and (3) while article 126(2)(d) enjoins courts to promote reconciliation, this must be done subject to the law. The court ordered refund of the UGX 1,000,000 paid by the applicants.

Outcome

Trial magistrate's compensation order revised and set aside; money paid by applicants to be refunded

Facts

The applicants were government employees and Board of Governors of Adilang Senior Secondary School in Agago District. They were charged with theft in Patongo Magistrate Grade 1 Court and pleaded not guilty on 1 June 2022. They were initially remanded but subsequently granted bail between 7 and 15 June 2022. The case was adjourned multiple times due to absent state counsel, unavailable witnesses, and other reasons. On 14 December 2022, the prosecution informed court that the matter had been referred to mediation and parties agreed the accused would pay UGX 1,000,000. On 25 January 2023, the trial magistrate made a consent order discharging the applicants but requiring them to pay UGX 1,000,000 compensation to the school, with each paying UGX 250,000 by 31 March 2023. The applicants did not sign the consent order. When they failed to pay, the school applied for execution and the applicants were served with a notice to show cause why a warrant of arrest should not issue. The applicants were arrested by court bailiffs and paid the money. They then filed this revision application challenging the compensation order.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial magistrate acted illegally, irregularly and improperly in making a compensation order against applicants who had been discharged of theft charges without conviction.
  2. Whether a consent order requiring compensation can be validly made in criminal proceedings without the participation and signature of the accused persons.
  3. Whether a compensation order can be made in a criminal case absent a guilty plea, conviction and sentence as required by the Penal Code Act.
  4. Whether the trial magistrate properly applied article 126(2)(d) of the Constitution in promoting reconciliation subject to the law.

Orders

  • The consent order of the trial magistrate requiring applicants to pay UGX 1,000,000 compensation to Adilang Senior Secondary School is revised and set aside.
  • UGX 1,000,000 shall be refunded by Adilang Senior Secondary School to the applicants within 14 days from 30th January 2024.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Law & Procedure — Compensation Orders — Requirements for Validity — Necessity of Guilty Plea, Conviction and Sentence
A compensation order in a criminal case of theft can only be made under section 251 of the Penal Code Act where the accused has pleaded guilty to the offence, been convicted, and sentenced by the court as provided under section 252 of the Penal Code Act. Where no guilty plea is recorded, no finding of guilt is made, and there is no conviction or sentence, a compensation order lacks legal basis.
Constitutional Law — Fair Hearing — Right to Participate in Proceedings — Consent Orders in Criminal Cases
Where a trial court extracts and signs a consent order in criminal proceedings without the participation of the accused persons, depriving them of any say in the process leading to its preparation and unilateral signing, this violates the right to a fair hearing and due process contrary to article 28(1) as entrenched by article 44(c) of the Constitution.
Constitutional Law — Reconciliation — Article 126(2)(d) — Application Subject to Law
Article 126(2)(d) of the Constitution enjoins courts to promote reconciliation between parties in adjudicating cases of both civil and criminal nature, but this must be done subject to the law. A court cannot ignore the law in seeking to promote reconciliation. Criminal trials are not necessarily procedurally settled in the manner civil matters are, and the law regarding amicable settlement of criminal matters must be followed.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Criminal Revision — Powers of High Court — Section 50(1)(b) Criminal Procedure Code Act
Under section 50(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code Act, where it appears that in proceedings in a Magistrate's Court an error material to the merits of any case or involving a miscarriage of justice has occurred, the High Court may, in the case of any order other than an order of acquittal, alter or reverse the order. Revision is an exercise of discretion which must be done judiciously to correct the conclusions of the subordinate court if necessary.
Constitutional Law — Director of Public Prosecutions — Powers and Functions — Control by Courts
Under article 120(3)(b) of the Constitution, the Director of Public Prosecutions is mandated to institute criminal proceedings against any person in any court with competent jurisdiction. The court has no powers to prevent the DPP from preferring a charge against any person as the decision to prosecute lies with the DPP. The court's control of the DPP lies not in stopping the DPP from preferring charges but in acquitting the person when the DPP adduces insufficient evidence or in dismissing the charge when the DPP does not lead any evidence.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Discharge of Accused — When Permissible
At law, a discharge of an accused person can only happen if the criminal case is withdrawn by the DPP at any stage before the accused is found by court to have a case to answer or before a finding of a prima facie case is made, or if the trial court dismisses the prosecution case before the matter reaches that stage.

Legislation cited (24)

Cases cited (10)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Aloyoto Harriet and Others v Uganda (Criminal Revision Application No. 1 of 2023) [2025] UGHC 587 (31 July 2025)
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.