Wakilii

Henry Kayondo v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 35 92)

Supreme Court · [1993] UGSC 53 · 1993 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second appeal to the Supreme Court from the High Court's dismissal of a petition for revision of a Chief Magistrate's ruling overruling preliminary objections to the charge sheet
Decision
Appeal dismissed; the charges stand and the matter proceeds to trial before the Magistrate's Court

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 Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. Whether the two letters were "official documents" under the Official Secrets Act, and whether the NRM Secretariat is a government department, are questions of evidence to be determined at trial, not on a preliminary objection. The charges gave reasonable information as to their nature and disclosed offences. The alternative charge of retaining stolen property need not be a minor and cognate offence and was properly joined under section 84 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, being founded on the same facts. Section 124 Evidence Act privilege was displaced by the proviso for communications made in furtherance of an illegal purpose. The Court doubted that the preliminary objections were even authorised under the Magistrates' Courts Act.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; the charges stand and the matter proceeds to trial before the Magistrate's Court

Facts

The appellant was charged before a Magistrate's Court on two counts of unlawfully and prejudicially retaining an official document contrary to section 3(4)(a) of the Official Secrets Act. Count one concerned a letter written to the Administrative Secretary, National Resistance Movement Secretariat, and count two a letter to the Director of Research and Political Affairs, Office of the President. In the alternative, the appellant was charged with retaining stolen property (the same two documents) contrary to section 296(1) of the Penal Code. At the hearing the defence raised three preliminary objections: that the letters were not official documents as defined in section 15(1) of the Official Secrets Act; that the NRM Secretariat is not a Government department; and that the alternative charge would embarrass the accused. The Chief Magistrate overruled all three objections. The appellant's petition to the High Court for revision was dismissed, and he appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

  1. Whether the letters that were the subject of the charges were "official documents" within the meaning of section 15 of the Official Secrets Act, such that the question could be determined on a preliminary objection rather than by evidence at trial.
  2. Whether the National Resistance Movement Secretariat is a department of Government so that documents to or from it are government documents.
  3. Whether the alternative charge of retaining stolen property was properly joined to the substantive counts.
  4. Whether section 124 of the Evidence Act protected the relevant communications from disclosure.
  5. Whether the preliminary objections to the charges were competent and authorised under the Magistrates' Courts Act.

Orders

  • The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Statutory Interpretation — Interpretation Clauses — "Includes" as Extensive Not Restrictive
Where a definition clause declares that a word "includes" certain things, the definition is extensive and does not take away the word's ordinary, popular and natural meaning; the word retains its ordinary sense in addition to the enumerated items.
Criminal Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Matters Requiring Evidence
Whether a document is an "official document" within the Official Secrets Act, and whether a body is a department of Government, are questions of evidence to be determined at trial after evidence is led, and cannot be resolved on a preliminary objection to the charge.
Criminal Procedure — Charges — Sufficiency of Particulars
A charge is not bad in law where it contains such particulars as are necessary to give the accused reasonable information as to the nature of the charge and discloses an offence, as required by section 83 of the Magistrates' Courts Act.
Criminal Procedure — Joinder of Counts — Alternative Charges Founded on Same Facts
An alternative charge need not be a minor and cognate offence to the substantive charge; it is properly joined under section 84 of the Magistrates' Courts Act where it is founded on the same facts as the substantive counts.
Evidence — Professional Privilege — Proviso for Communications in Furtherance of Illegal Purpose
The privilege protecting professional communications under section 124 of the Evidence Act does not extend to communications made in furtherance of an illegal purpose, and the existence of a lawful defence does not render a charge bad in law.
Criminal Procedure — Power to Quash Charge — Distinction Between Magistrates' Courts Act and Trial on Indictments Decree
The Magistrates' Courts Act contains no provision empowering a Magistrate to strike out or quash a charge for being defective, unlike the express power to quash an indictment under section 56 of the Trial on Indictments Decree; a defective charge is met by requiring the prosecutor to substantiate it, failing which the accused must be acquitted.

Legislation cited (17)

Cases cited (3)

  • Robinson v.Barton Eccles Local Board
  • Ex.p. Ferguson
  • Samuels v Republic [1965] EA 1

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Henry Kayondo v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 35 92) [1993] UGSC 53 (27 May 1993)
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.