Charles Harry Twagira v Uganda [2003] UGSC 31

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

A single judge of the Supreme Court declined to grant an interim stay of criminal proceedings sought to allow the applicant to exhaust an intended third appeal against a Chief Magistrate's finding that he had a case to answer. The Court held that a finding of a prima facie case is an interlocutory ruling, not a 'judgment' within Article 257(1) of the Constitution or section 6(5) of the Judicature Statute, and therefore confers no right of appeal. A fair trial under Article 28 also requires a speedy trial; the proper course is to raise such complaints on appeal after the trial concludes. The application was dismissed, with the applicant bearing his own costs.

Outcome

Application for an interim stay of proceedings dismissed; the trial is to continue in the Chief Magistrate's Court.

Facts

The applicant was charged with embezzlement and stealing by an agent in the Buganda Road Chief Magistrate's Court. After the prosecution closed its case, a submission of no case to answer was made. On 24 June 2002 the Chief Magistrate ruled that a prima facie case had been established and that the applicant should be put to his defence. The applicant petitioned the High Court for revision under the Criminal Procedure Code; on 16 September 2002 Bamwine J dismissed the petition and remitted the matter for the trial to continue. The applicant's appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed on 19 August 2003. He lodged a notice of appeal intending to appeal to the Supreme Court and applied to the Court of Appeal for the certificate required for a third appeal, which was unlikely to be heard until the following month. With the Chief Magistrate set to resume the trial on 22 September 2003, the applicant filed Criminal Application No. 2 of 2003 and then this application seeking an interim stay of proceedings pending its determination.

Issues

1. Whether an interim stay of the criminal proceedings in the Chief Magistrate's Court should be granted pending determination of the applicant's substantive application for a third appeal.
2. Whether a finding that the accused has a prima facie case to answer is a 'judgment' within Article 257(1) of the Constitution and section 6(5) of the Judicature Statute, so as to confer a right of appeal.
3. Whether continuing the trial before the applicant exhausts his intended appeal would violate his right to a fair trial under Article 28 of the Constitution.

Orders

• Interim stay of proceedings in the Chief Magistrate's Court declined.
• Application dismissed.
• The applicant to meet his own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (7)

• Judicature Statute 1996 s.6(5)
• Magistrates Courts Act 1970 s.216
• Criminal Procedure Code ss.339, 341(1)(b) and (5)
• Constitution of Uganda Article 28
• Constitution of Uganda Article 257(1)
• Rules of the Supreme Court rule 40(1)
• Rules of the Supreme Court rules 1(3) and 41

Cases cited (6)

• W. Mukiibi Vs J. Semusambwa
• Criminal Appeal No. 397 of 1959 (Mohamed Taki Vs R.), Case No. 107 MB NO.7//60
• Jethwa and Another v Republic (1969) EA 459
• Republic v Wachira (1975) EA 262
• Republic v Kidasa (1973) EA 368
• Merali v Uganda (1963) EA 647

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.

• Kakande v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application No. 3 of 2022)

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