Wakilii

Mpamize Charles v Uganda (Criminal Revision 2 of 2023)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 1229 · 2025 Revision Allowed — Criminal Proceedings Terminated AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal revision application from Chief Magistrate Court seeking to terminate criminal proceedings arising from alleged disobedience of civil court orders
Decision
Criminal proceedings terminated and applicant discharged

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 criminal proceedings under Section 104 of the Penal Code Act cannot be invoked for disobedience of civil court orders where the Civil Procedure Rules provide a specific remedy. Section 104 expressly excepts cases where another penalty or mode of proceeding is prescribed. Order 41 Rule 2(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules provides the appropriate remedy for breach of civil injunctions through attachment of property or civil detention. The prosecution was therefore irregular and the criminal proceedings were terminated.

Outcome

Criminal proceedings terminated and applicant discharged

Facts

The applicant was charged with disobedience of lawful orders contrary to Section 104 of the Penal Code Act. The charge alleged that in October 2022 he disobeyed orders of the Deputy Registrar restraining him from selling cows and land until a divorce cause was finally heard and determined. When arraigned on 15 December 2022, his counsel raised a preliminary objection that the charge was defective because it arose from civil court orders. The trial magistrate overruled the objection on the ground that the applicant had not provided a copy of the temporary injunction order. The applicant then filed this revision application seeking to terminate the criminal proceedings.

Issues

  1. Whether a person can be charged under Section 104 of the Penal Code Act for disobedience of a civil court order where a specific remedy is provided under the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. Whether the trial magistrate erred in overruling the preliminary objection to the charge sheet on the ground that the applicant did not produce the temporary injunction order.
  3. Whether criminal proceedings arising from alleged disobedience of civil court orders should be terminated.

Orders

  • The proceedings in Criminal Case No. 0046/2022 are hereby terminated.
  • The accused person is hereby discharged of the offence of disobedience of lawful orders contrary to Section 104 of the Penal Code Act Cap 128.
  • The application for costs is dismissed as misconceived.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Law & Procedure — Disobedience of Lawful Orders — Scope of Section 104 Penal Code Act — Limitation Where Other Remedy Prescribed
Section 104 of the Penal Code Act, which criminalises disobedience of court orders, is of general character but limited in scope. It expressly excepts cases where any other penalty or mode of proceeding is prescribed for the disobedience. Where the Civil Procedure Rules provide a specific remedy for breach of civil court orders, criminal proceedings under Section 104 cannot be invoked.
Civil Procedure — Injunctions — Breach of Temporary Injunction — Appropriate Remedy
Where a person disobeys a temporary injunction granted in civil proceedings, the appropriate remedy is provided under Order 41 Rule 2(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules, which permits the court to order attachment of property or civil detention for up to six months. Criminal law should not be invoked to enforce compliance with civil court orders.
Statutory Interpretation — Penal Code Act Section 104 — Express Exception Clause — Effect
The express exception in Section 104 of the Penal Code Act stating 'unless any other penalty or mode of proceeding is expressly prescribed in respect of such disobedience' must be given effect. It is inappropriate to charge a person under Section 104 if another penalty or mode of proceeding is prescribed for the alleged disobedience.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Revision Jurisdiction — Grounds for Exercise — Illegality and Irregularity
The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 50(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code Act can be invoked where decisions are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with provisions of law, or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily. The object is to set right a patent defect or error of jurisdiction or law.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (6)

  • Rev. Francis Mpamizo v Uganda (Criminal Revision No. 2 of 2009)
  • Abilah v Republic [1968] 1 EA 662
  • Kigorogolo v Rueshereka [1969] 1 EA 426
  • Uganda v Bulasio Wooli [1977] HCB 63
  • Uganda v Sylvester Kaseregenyi (Criminal Revision No. 175 of 1976)
  • Uganda v Okuva Semi [1977] 58

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mpamize Charles v Uganda (Criminal Revision 2 of 2023) [2025] UGHC 1229 (12 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.