Wakilii

Juliet Katusiime & 2 Ors. v Uganda (Crim. Revision CAse No. 02 of 2011)

High Court · [2011] UGHC 91 · 2011 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for revision of trial magistrate's interlocutory ruling admitting charge and caution statement
Decision
Revision application dismissed; matter remitted to trial magistrate for continuation of trial

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 held that a revision application against an interlocutory ruling on admissibility of evidence is premature and not maintainable. The proper remedy is to appeal after final judgment, including grounds relating to the interlocutory ruling. Entertaining revision applications on every interlocutory decision would defeat the constitutional right to a speedy trial. The matter was referred back to the trial magistrate for speedy and fair trial.

Outcome

Revision application dismissed; matter remitted to trial magistrate for continuation of trial

Facts

During trial before the Magistrate Grade I at City Hall Court, the defence objected to admission of the first accused's charge and caution statement recorded by PW7, D/ASP Allan Twishime on 13 October 2009, arguing it was inadmissible because PW7 was the investigating officer. The trial magistrate overruled the objection and admitted the statement into evidence. The applicants, aggrieved by this ruling, filed a revision application in the High Court seeking to reverse the trial magistrate's order under sections 45 and 50 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Issues

  1. Whether the High Court should exercise its powers of revision to reverse a trial magistrate's interlocutory ruling admitting a charge and caution statement into evidence.
  2. Whether a revision application is maintainable against an interlocutory order that does not finally determine the accused's rights.

Orders

  • Revision application is not maintainable.
  • File referred back to the Trial Magistrate for speedy and fair trial of the accused persons.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Procedure — Revision — Interlocutory Orders — Maintainability
A revision application cannot be maintained against an interlocutory order or ruling of a trial magistrate which does not finally determine the rights of the accused. Revision, like appeals, can only be brought on a final order or judgment that determines the case.
Criminal Procedure — Interlocutory Rulings — Remedy by Appeal
Where an accused person is dissatisfied with a trial court's interlocutory ruling on admissibility of evidence, the proper remedy is to appeal at the conclusion of the trial and include complaints about the interlocutory ruling as grounds of appeal, rather than seeking immediate revision.
Criminal Procedure — Speedy Trial — Constitutional Right
Entertaining applications for revision on every interlocutory decision or order of a trial magistrate would defeat the constitutional right of an accused to a speedy trial.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Criminal Procedure Code s.45
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.48
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.50
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.50(5)

Cases cited (5)

  • CPL Wasswa and Ninsima v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 4849 of 1999)
  • Masila Sosa & Nume Charles v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 2007)
  • Cpl Ngobi Kato Galandi & Anor v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 190 of 2003)
  • Sulachana & others vs M. Kulasekaran, Criminal Revision Petition No.1027 of 2001
  • Charles Harry Twagara v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Application No. 3 of 2003)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Juliet Katusiime & 2 Ors. Vs Uganda (Crim. Revision CAse No. 02 of 2011) [2011] UGHC 91 (15 July 2011)
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.