Wakilii

Kabusu and Another v Director Of Public Prosecution (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 18 of 2022)

High Court · [2022] UGHCCRD 106 · 2022 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for revision of interlocutory rulings from Entebbe Chief Magistrate's Court
Decision
Application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and improper party designation

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 it lacks revisional jurisdiction under sections 48 and 50 of the Criminal Procedure Code Act to interfere with interlocutory orders made by a magistrate's court during a pending trial. Revision can only be exercised over final orders that determine guilt or innocence, not interim rulings on procedural matters such as recalling witnesses. The application was also incompetent because it was brought against the Director of Public Prosecutions rather than the State of Uganda, which is the proper party in all criminal proceedings.

Outcome

Application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and improper party designation

Facts

The applicants were charged with unlawful use of land and trespass in Entebbe Chief Magistrate's Court. During trial, they were unrepresented when PW1 testified and were required to cross-examine the witness themselves. After retaining counsel, they applied to recall PW1 for cross-examination, which the trial magistrate dismissed on 8 November 2021. They then filed a formal review application (M.A. No. 18 of 2021), which was also dismissed on 24 January 2022. The applicants sought revision in the High Court, arguing that the trial magistrate's rulings denying them the opportunity to cross-examine PW1 through counsel occasioned a miscarriage of justice. They also complained that PW2's evidence was closed without cross-examination and that a certificate of title was admitted over their objection.

Issues

  1. Whether the High Court has revisional jurisdiction to overturn interlocutory orders made by a magistrate's court during a pending trial.
  2. Whether the Director of Public Prosecutions is the proper party to be named as respondent in criminal revision proceedings.

Orders

  • Application dismissed as incompetent.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Law & Procedure — Revision — Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction — Interlocutory Orders
The High Court's revisional jurisdiction under sections 48 and 50 of the Criminal Procedure Code Act extends only to final orders that determine the guilt or innocence of an accused person, not to interlocutory or interim orders made during the pendency of a trial.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Revision — Interlocutory Rulings — Recall of Witnesses
A ruling declining to recall a witness for cross-examination is an interlocutory order that does not constitute a final resolution of the controversy and cannot be challenged through revisional proceedings in the High Court.
Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Threshold Issue — Duty of Court
Jurisdiction is a threshold issue that must be determined at the earliest opportunity. Where a court lacks jurisdiction, it has no power to proceed further and any order it makes would be null and void. A court cannot confer jurisdiction upon itself.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Parties — Proper Respondent — State as Prosecutor
All criminal proceedings in Uganda are instituted by and on behalf of the State of Uganda. The Director of Public Prosecutions is not the proper party to be named as respondent in criminal proceedings; the correct party is 'Uganda' or 'The State'.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (7)

  • Uganda v Dalal [1970] 1 EA 355
  • Semuyaga v Uganda [1975] 1 EA 186
  • Owners and Masters of The Motor Vessel Joey v Owners and Masters of the Motor Tugs Barbara and Steve B [2008] 1 EA 367
  • Uganda v Santina Lakot [1986] HCB 28
  • Municipal Council of Dar-es-Salaam v AB De P Almeida and Others [1957] 1 EA 244
  • Cr. Rev. 81/63, Geresomu Musoke v. Uganda (unreported)
  • Hassan Yusufu v. Uganda Cr. App. 36/74 (unreported)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kabusu and Another v Director Of Public Prosecution (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 18 of 2022) [2022] UGHCCRD 106 (3 June 2022)
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.