Wakilii

Isaac Kimaze Ssemakadde v Uganda (Private Prosecution by Byamazima Joshua and Tonny Tumukunde) (Revision Application No. 2 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCRD 25 · 2025 Revision Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Revision application from the Chief Magistrate's Court at Buganda Road seeking review of decisions to sanction a private prosecution for insulting the modesty of a woman
Decision
Application dismissed; criminal proceedings in the lower court to resume

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 High Court dismissed the application for revision, holding that the Chief Magistrate at Buganda Road acted lawfully in sanctioning the private prosecution against the applicant for insulting the modesty of a woman under section 115(3) of the Penal Code Act. The court found that all procedural requirements under section 42 of the Magistrates Courts Act were satisfied, that a prima facie case was established, that the applicant lacked standing to participate in ex parte proceedings, and that the Chief Magistrate correctly assessed the complaint as neither frivolous nor vexatious.

Outcome

Application dismissed; criminal proceedings in the lower court to resume

Facts

On 20 November 2024, Byamazima Joshua and Tonny Tumukunde filed a private prosecution complaint at Buganda Road Chief Magistrates Court alleging that Isaac Kimaze Ssemakadde, President of the Uganda Law Society, insulted the modesty of a woman contrary to section 115(3) of the Penal Code Act. The complaint was based on alleged utterances made at a People's Front for Freedom event on 18 November 2024 at Katonga Road, Kampala, where Ssemakadde allegedly referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions, Justice Jane Frances Abodo, using derogatory terms including 'vagina from Karamoja,' 'pumpkin,' 'dead wood,' and 'dimwit.' The complainants provided a video recording of the alleged statements and a transcript from Uganda Broadcasting Corporation. Ssemakadde filed an application to dismiss the complaint, arguing lack of prima facie evidence, absence of victim testimony, bad faith prosecution, and breach of duty of candour. On 17 January 2025, the Chief Magistrate dismissed Ssemakadde's application, found a prima facie case established, drew up a formal charge, and issued criminal summons. Ssemakadde then filed this revision application to the High Court challenging the Chief Magistrate's decisions on twelve grounds.

Issues

  1. Whether the Chief Magistrate had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, draw up a charge, and issue summons for a private prosecution under section 42 of the Magistrates Courts Act.
  2. Whether the Chief Magistrate erred by not dismissing a complaint on oath that was allegedly denied by the private prosecutors.
  3. Whether the applicant had the right to cross-examine the deponent in ex parte private prosecution proceedings.
  4. Whether the private prosecutors breached their duty of candour in filing the complaint on oath.
  5. Whether the private prosecutors met the 'reasonable and probable cause' threshold required under section 42(3) of the Magistrates Courts Act.
  6. Whether the Chief Magistrate disregarded the Electronic Transactions Act in considering video evidence at the prima facie stage.
  7. Whether the Chief Magistrate correctly found that a prima facie case was established under section 115(3) of the Penal Code Act.
  8. Whether the Chief Magistrate erred by not considering the context, symbolism, and constitutional protections relating to freedom of expression.
  9. Whether the Chief Magistrate improperly consulted the parish chief/ward administrator in secret.
  10. Whether the complaint was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of court process.
  11. Whether the Chief Magistrate should have recused himself from the proceedings.

Orders

  • Application for revision dismissed for lack of merit.
  • Trial Chief Magistrate directed to resume proceedings in Criminal Case No. 913 of 2024.

Rules and key headnotes

Private Prosecutions — Jurisdiction of Chief Magistrate to Sanction
A Chief Magistrate has jurisdiction to entertain complaints on oath for private prosecutions, formulate charges, and issue criminal summonses where the alleged offence falls within the court's subject matter jurisdiction and the offence was committed within the court's geographic jurisdiction.
Private Prosecutions — Ex Parte Nature of Section 42 Proceedings
Proceedings under section 42 of the Magistrates Courts Act are ex parte and do not provide an avenue for the accused person to participate, including cross-examining witnesses, before a charge is laid. The accused's right to cross-examine witnesses under Article 28(3)(g) of the Constitution is activated only when the accused person has been charged with a criminal offence.
Private Prosecutions — Duty of Candour
In private prosecutions, the duty of candour requires full and frank disclosure to the court of all material facts, including potentially adverse material. This includes any information that might militate against the grant of summons or be relevant to the court's decision. The duty is owed to the court, not to the accused person or to investigative or prosecutorial authorities at the ex parte stage.
Private Prosecutions — Reasonable and Probable Cause
Reasonable and probable cause means an honest belief in the guilt of the accused based on a full conviction, founded upon reasonable grounds, of the existence of circumstances which, assuming them to be true, would reasonably lead an ordinary prudent and cautious person placed in the position of the accuser to the conclusion that the person charged was probably guilty of the offence imputed.
Electronic Evidence — Admissibility Standards at Prima Facie Stage
At the preliminary stage of establishing a prima facie case for purposes of formulating a charge and issuing summons in a private prosecution, the magistrate is not legally obliged to adhere to the admissibility standards for electronic evidence stipulated in the Electronic Transactions Act. The evidentiary standard at this stage is less strict than at trial and focuses on whether there is enough evidence to establish a presumption of fact justifying moving forward with the case.
Penal Code — Insulting Modesty of a Woman — Prima Facie Case
A prima facie case for insulting the modesty of a woman under section 115(3) of the Penal Code Act is established where evidence shows: (1) utterance of offensive words directed at a woman, (2) intent for the words to be heard by the woman, (3) intention to insult her modesty, and (4) identification of the accused as the originator of the remarks.
Freedom of Expression — Limitations Under Article 43(1)
Freedom of speech and expression under Article 29(1)(a) of the Constitution is subject to limitations under Article 43(1) which provides that in the enjoyment of rights and freedoms, no person shall prejudice the fundamental or other human rights and freedoms of others or the public interest. Dehumanising language spoken publicly with the intention to cause emotional distress and humiliation to a woman may constitute a misdemeanour under section 115(3) of the Penal Code Act and may contravene Article 43(1) by infringing the woman's fundamental rights under Article 24 protecting against degrading treatment.

Legislation cited (21)

Cases cited (14)

  • Kasibante Moses v Katongole Singh Marwaka and Another (Kampala Election Petition No. 23 of 2011)
  • Ahmed Kawoza Kangu v Bangu Aggrey Fred and Another (SCC Application No. 4 of 2007)
  • M.V. The Spiliada [1978]AC 460
  • Semakula v Magala [1979] HCB 90
  • R (on the application of Kay) v Leeds Magistrates' Court [2018] EWHC 1233 (Admin) [2018] 4 WLR 91
  • Amina Mpimbi v. Ramadhani Kiwe 1990 TLR 6 (HC) 8
  • Edmund Mjengwa and six others v. John Mgaya and Four others, Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 1999
  • R v Bour Street MSM, ex parte South Coast Shipping Company Limited [1993]QB 645
  • For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers (2025 UKSC 16)
  • Basajabala v Kakande (Criminal Revision Case No. 2 of 2013)
  • J.E.B. Fasteners Ltd v Marks [1983]3 ALL ER 583
  • R (Dacre) v City of Westminster Magistrates Court [2008]EWHC 1167 (adm)
  • Asif v Ditta and Another [2021]EWCA Crim 1091
  • R v. Bow Street Magistrates Court ex parte Pinochet [1999] 2 WLR 827

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Isaac Kimaze Ssemakadde v Uganda (Private Prosecution by Byamazima Joshua and Tonny Tumukunde) (Revision Application No. 2 of 2025) [2025] UGHCCRD 25 (24 June 2025)
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.