Arutu v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition 4 of 1997)

Observed later treatment

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.

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.

Outcome

Petition stayed and the reference remitted to the trial court to continue the criminal proceedings

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.

Rules and key headnotes

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)

Cases citing this judgment (2)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Serapio Rukundo v Attorney General (Consitutional Case No. 3 of 1997) followed
• Serapio Rukundo v Attorney General (Constitutional Case No. 3 of 1997) followed

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