Namuddu Christine v Uganda (Criminal Application 3 of 1999)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

On an application for leave to appeal under section 6(5) of the Judicature Statute 1996 and Rule 37(1)(b), the Supreme Court is not restricted, as the Court of Appeal is, to questions of law of great public or general importance; in its overall duty to see that justice is done it may grant leave whenever it considers the appeal should be heard, and is not confined to the matters considered by the Court of Appeal. While the applicant's arguments on strict liability had been properly dealt with below, the Court found she appeared to have been convicted and sentenced on two counts arising from the same transaction, contrary to section 20 of the Penal Code and section 39 of the Interpretation Decree 1976, and allowed the application so the case could be reviewed.

Outcome

Application for leave to appeal allowed; applicant held entitled to a review of the case by the Supreme Court.

Facts

The applicant was Under Secretary, and Professor Ssenyonga the Permanent Secretary, in the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries. Arising from the performance of their duties, the two were jointly charged before a Chief Magistrate with causing financial loss contrary to section 258(1) of the Penal Code and abuse of office contrary to section 83, both counts based on the same transactions between June 1992 and July 1993 involving the signing of Bank of Uganda cheques amounting to Shs.89,036,431. They were each sentenced to concurrent terms of five years and three years and ordered to pay Shs.20 million compensation. Their appeal succeeded in the High Court, but the Court of Appeal reversed and restored the Chief Magistrate's decision. After their appeal to the Supreme Court was found to lack the requisite certificate or leave, the Court of Appeal declined to certify the matter, prompting the present application for leave. Professor Ssenyonga did not pursue the application.

Issues

1. Whether, on an application for leave to appeal under section 6(5) of the Judicature Statute 1996 and Rule 37(1)(b) of the Supreme Court Rules, the Supreme Court is confined to questions of law or to the matters considered by the Court of Appeal when it refused a certificate.
2. Whether the applicant's intended appeal raised matters of public or general importance warranting the grant of leave.
3. Whether the applicant could properly be convicted and sentenced on two counts arising from the same transaction without offending the rule against double punishment.

Orders

• Application allowed.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (8)

• Judicature Statute 1996 s.6(5)
• Supreme Court Rules 1996 r.37(1)(b)
• Supreme Court Rules 1996 r.41(1)
• Supreme Court Rules 1996 r.42(1)
• Penal Code Act s.258(1)
• Penal Code Act s.83
• Penal Code Act s.20
• Interpretation Decree 1976 s.39

Cases cited (10)

• Kassim Mpanga v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 1994)
• Attorney General for Northern Ireland v Gallagher (1963) A.C. 349
• Gelberg v Miller (1961) 1 All E.R. 291
• Rex v Mohamed Shah s/o Lal Shah (1939) 6 EACA 103
• R v Dames; R v Williams (1961) 1 All ER 290
• Ashdon v R (1973) 58 Cr. App. R. 339
• Verrier v DPP (1966) 50 Cr. App. R. 315
• R v Dobbs (1951) 18 EACA 319
• Santokh Singh Kehar v R (1955) 22 EACA 440
• Muiruri v Republic (1973) EA 86

Cases citing this judgment (3)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Tinkamanyire v Kihika & Another (Civil Application 34 of 2020)
• Akankwasa v Uganda (Criminal Application 9 of 2020)
• Sophatia & 3 Others v Nangobi & 2 Others (Civil Appeal 6 of 2018)

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