Hon. Winfred K. Masiko and Others v The Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 220 of 2008)

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.

Holding

The High Court granted leave to apply for judicial review to challenge the decisions of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Director of CID to prefer embezzlement charges and the magistrate's orders sending some applicants to remand. The court held that the applicants had presented facts that prima facie entitled them to leave, as they raised substantial allegations of abuse of court process, illegality, and bad faith. The court noted the application raised novel and significant issues regarding the right to challenge the DPP's prosecutorial discretion and police decisions to prefer charges.

Outcome

Leave granted to apply for judicial review with automatic stay of related proceedings pending determination of substantive application

Facts

The applicants were members or employees of Rugada Ltd, a company incorporated by guarantee in 2001 that contracted with the Government of Uganda in 2004 to act as lead agency fighting HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria in four districts. In August 2008, the first applicant was summoned to CID headquarters and interrogated, and CID agents raided Rugada offices in Rukungiri, seizing documents. On 29 October 2008, the second, third and fourth applicants were charged at Buganda Road Court with embezzlement and 33 other counts and remanded to Luzira Prison. The applicants contended the charges related to alleged embezzlement of Rugada Ltd funds totalling UGX 130,000,000 were brought without any complaint from Rugada Ltd, that the venue at Buganda Road Court in Kampala lacked jurisdiction as the alleged offences occurred in Rukungiri, and that the prosecution was calculated to embarrass the first applicant, a Member of Parliament, and create false public perception of anti-corruption efforts.

Issues

1. Whether the applicants have provided material that prima facie entitles them to be granted leave to file an application for judicial review.
2. Whether the nature and seriousness of the complaints raised warrant the grant of leave to apply for prerogative orders.

Orders

• Leave granted to the applicants to apply for judicial review and seek prerogative orders of certiorari, prohibition and other appropriate reliefs.
• The grant of leave operates as a stay of all actions and processes relating to this matter until the substantive application for judicial review is heard and determined finally.
• The applicants to file the application for judicial review not later than 14 days from the date of this ruling.
• Costs of this application to abide by the outcome of the substantive application.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (6)

• Judicature Act s.36
• Civil Procedure (Amendment) (Judicial Review) Rules 2003 r.4
• Civil Procedure (Amendment) (Judicial Review) Rules 2003 r.5(2)
• Civil Procedure (Amendment) (Judicial Review) Rules 2003 r.6(1)
• Civil Procedure (Amendment) (Judicial Review) Rules 2003 r.6(4)
• Civil Procedure (Amendment) (Judicial Review) Rules 2003 r.4(10)(a)

Cases cited (2)

• Kikonda Butema Farms Ltd v The Inspector General of Government (Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2002)
• Major M. L. Musyona And 4 others Vs. The Chief of Staff, Armed Forces of Kenya and 2 Others, Civil Appeal No.84 of 2000 (unreported)

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