Wakilii

Matovu Livingstone v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause 210 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCD 54 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review of Chief Magistrate's Court order restricting media coverage of criminal proceedings
Decision
Application for judicial review dismissed; impugned order of Chief Magistrate's Court upheld

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

Held that a trial court possesses statutory and inherent authority to regulate courtroom proceedings, including restricting live audio-visual recording and requiring media accreditation, where such measures are directed at protecting the integrity and fairness of a pending criminal trial. The impugned order did not close the court but merely regulated live broadcasting and required media verification. The applicant failed to establish illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety. Judicial review will not lie absent proof of jurisdictional error. Application dismissed.

Outcome

Application for judicial review dismissed; impugned order of Chief Magistrate's Court upheld

Facts

The applicant, a journalist who regularly covers court proceedings, sought judicial review of an order issued by the Chief Magistrate's Court of Mengo at Nateete in Criminal Case No. CO-605 of 2023. The trial magistrate, upon an informal application by the State Prosecutor, issued an order banning all media houses from audio and video recording of the proceedings and requiring media personnel to be verified and accredited by the court before being permitted to sit in court and take notes. The prosecution alleged violation of the sub judice rule based on TikTok videos of pastors including the complainant discussing the case. The applicant contended that media representatives were not afforded an opportunity to be heard before the order was made and that the order violated constitutional principles of open justice, freedom of expression, and access to information under Articles 28, 29 and 41 of the Constitution.

Issues

  1. Whether the decision of the Chief Magistrate's Court restricting media coverage is amenable to judicial review

Orders

  • Application for orders of certiorari, prohibition and injunction dismissed.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Grounds for Intervention — Illegality, Irrationality, Procedural Impropriety
Judicial review is not an appellate jurisdiction and is not concerned with the correctness of a decision nor with substituting the court's discretion for that of the decision-maker. Its remit is confined to the legality of the decision-making process. The classical grounds for judicial review are illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety.
Open Justice — Limits on Media Coverage — Live Broadcasting Distinguished from Public Access
The constitutional principle of open justice under Article 28(1) guarantees a fair, speedy and public hearing, but openness does not equate to absolutism. A courtroom open to the public is not the same as a courtroom converted into a live media studio. The open justice principle ensures access but does not constitutionalize a right to live broadcast or real-time digital transmission.
Court's Authority to Regulate Proceedings — Media Restrictions — Inherent Jurisdiction
A trial court possesses statutory authority under section 40(1) of the Magistrates Courts Act and inherent jurisdiction to regulate proceedings, including exclusion of the public where necessary in the interests of justice. Courts possess inherent jurisdiction to control their own proceedings in order to preserve order, protect the integrity of the trial, safeguard the rights of the accused and prevent prejudice. An order prohibiting live audio and video recording and requiring media accreditation is a regulatory measure, not an abrogation of public hearing.
Judicial Review — Natural Justice — Right to be Heard — Media as Observers Not Parties
Natural justice requires that parties whose rights are directly determined be afforded an opportunity to be heard. Journalists are observers, not parties to criminal proceedings. Article 28 protects the accused's right to a fair hearing but does not create an independent procedural entitlement for members of the press to participate in interlocutory case management decisions. A requirement that every courtroom management direction affecting observers be preceded by a hearing of those observers would render trial control impracticable.
Limitation of Rights — Proportionality — Balancing Media Freedom and Fair Trial Rights
Article 43 of the Constitution permits limitations on rights where such limitation is demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society. In constitutional adjudication, proportionality requires balancing competing rights: freedom of expression and media, the accused's right to a fair trial, and the public interest in orderly justice. A measure that does not exclude the public, does not prohibit print reporting, does not permanently close proceedings, and merely regulates live recording and requires accreditation is targeted at a specific perceived risk and cannot be said to be manifestly disproportionate.
Judicial Review — Supervisory Jurisdiction — Restraint in Interfering with Trial Court Discretion
Supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts must be exercised with restraint. Intervention in the midst of ongoing criminal proceedings risks fragmenting trials, encouraging collateral litigation and undermining orderly adjudication. Unless a clear jurisdictional error or constitutional violation is demonstrated, the High Court should refrain from substituting its view for that of the trial court in matters of courtroom control.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (2)

  • Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374
  • Paul Khik v Attorney General and Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 120 of 2012)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Matovu Livingstone v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause 210 of 2025) [2026] UGHCCD 54 (6 March 2026)
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.