Charles Onyango and Anor v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 15 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 petitioners, charged under s.50(1) of the Penal Code Act for publication of false news, petitioned under Article 137 alleging that the prosecution was unconstitutional and sought to be released from it. The court found that the petition was intended to circumvent or pre-empt the pending criminal prosecution. Following Arutu John v Attorney General, it held that where criminal proceedings are pending in another court and a petition is brought concerning the same matter, the petition should be stayed pending determination of the criminal trial. The petition was accordingly stayed pending the criminal case, with a direction that the trial proceed as quickly as practicable, and no order as to costs.

Outcome

Petition stayed pending determination of the pending criminal case.

Facts

On 24 October 1997 the petitioners were jointly charged by the DPP in the Magistrates Court under s.50(1) of the Penal Code Act with publication of false news, on two counts. That criminal case remained pending. On 24 November 1997 the petitioners brought this constitutional petition under Article 137, seeking a declaration that the DPP's act of prosecuting them was inconsistent with Articles 29(1)(a),(b),(e), 40(2) and 43(2)(e) of the Constitution, an order releasing them from the criminal prosecution, and a declaration that they were entitled to damages for unconstitutional prosecution. The court raised, as a preliminary matter, whether the petition should proceed given the pending criminal case.

Issues

1. Whether a constitutional petition should proceed where criminal proceedings concerning the same matter are already pending against the petitioners in another court.

Orders

• Petition stayed pending determination of Buganda Road Court Criminal Case No. U 2636/97 against the petitioners.
• The criminal trial to be conducted as quickly as practicable.
• No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (6)

• Constitution of Uganda Article 137
• Constitution of Uganda Article 29(1)(a),(b),(e)
• Constitution of Uganda Article 40(2)
• Constitution of Uganda Article 43(2)(e)
• Penal Code Act s.50(1)
• Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 1992 (S.I. No. 26/92)

Cases cited (1)

• Arutu John v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 4 of 1997)

Cases citing this judgment (10)

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.

• BMS General Trading Limited v Financial Intelligence Authority and Another (Miscellaneous Cause 25 of 2026)
• Asingwire Alex Mukasa v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 44 of 2022)
• Rhaeim Aimen v Granada Hotels Uganda Limited (Labour Appeal 2 of 2023)
• Ben Rhaeim Aimen v Granada Hotels (U) Limited (Labour Dispute Appeal 2 of 2023)
• Karamagi and Another v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 5 of 2016)
• Centre for Domestic Violence Prevention and Others v Attorney General of Uganda (Constitutional Petition No. 13 of 2014)
• Center for Health, Human Rights and Development (CEHURD) & 3 Ors v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 16 of 2011)
• Olara Otunnu v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 12 of 2010)
• Male Mabirizi & Ors v Attorney General (Constitutional Petitions No. 49 of 2017)
• Lugonvu & 3 Ors v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 24 of 2009)

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