Wakilii

Barasa Bernard Odiemo and Another v Uganda (Criminal Revision 1 of 2017)

High Court · [2017] UGHC 139 · 2017 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for criminal revision of trial magistrate's interlocutory ruling rejecting preliminary objection
Decision
Application for criminal revision dismissed

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases distinguished in 1 Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

Good law Followed in 0 cases and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 the criminal revision application, holding that revision under Section 48 of the Criminal Procedure Code Act is available only for final orders, not interlocutory rulings. The trial magistrate's order rejecting the preliminary objection was interlocutory in nature and could not be challenged by revision before the conclusion of the trial. The court further held that the choice of charges falls exclusively within the mandate of the Director of Public Prosecutions under Article 120 of the Constitution, and the accused cannot dictate which charges should be preferred.

Outcome

Application for criminal revision dismissed

Facts

The first applicant, a court bailiff, was charged with malicious damage and doing grievous harm arising from the execution of a court decree in Civil Suit No. 34 of 2013. During execution, the judgment debtor's wife alleged assault and reported the matter to police. At trial, the applicant's counsel raised a preliminary objection that the charge sheet was defective because the Director of Public Prosecutions' consent had not been obtained, arguing that under the Judicature (Court Bailiffs) Rules, such consent is required before prosecuting a bailiff for offences committed while executing judicial duties. The trial magistrate overruled the objection and ordered the trial to proceed. The applicants then filed a criminal revision application seeking to have the magistrate's ruling set aside.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial magistrate's interlocutory ruling overruling a preliminary objection can be the subject of criminal revision under Section 48 of the Criminal Procedure Code Act.
  2. Whether the Director of Public Prosecutions' consent was required before charging a court bailiff under the Penal Code Act for offences allegedly committed during execution of court orders.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Revision — Scope — Interlocutory Orders
Criminal revision under Section 48 of the Criminal Procedure Code Act is available only for final orders, findings, sentences, or orders recorded or passed by a magistrate's court, and not for interlocutory orders made in the course of a criminal trial.
Preliminary Objections — Remedy for Adverse Ruling
A ruling rejecting a preliminary objection in a criminal trial is interlocutory in nature and cannot be challenged by way of criminal revision before the conclusion of the trial.
Director of Public Prosecutions — Independence — Charging Discretion
The entire prosecution process, including the determination of what charges to prefer against a suspect, falls under the exclusive mandate of the Director of Public Prosecutions under Article 120 of the Constitution, and the accused cannot seek to choose what charges should be brought in their case.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (3)

  • Uganda v Dalal (1970) EA 355
  • Geresomu Musoke v Uganda (Criminal Revision No. 81 of 1963)
  • Chatalal Karsandas v R MB 46/62

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Barasa Bernard Odiemo and Another v Uganda (Criminal Revision 1 of 2017) [2017] UGHC 139 (1 November 2017)
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.