Nankindu v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 66 of 2020)
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 there is no right of appeal against interlocutory rulings in criminal trials under the Magistrates Courts Act. Section 204 provides for appeals only against final orders of conviction or acquittal. A ruling allowing amendment of a charge sheet is interlocutory and does not constitute a final resolution of the controversy. Appeal is a creature of statute and cannot be conferred by litigants or the court where the statute does not provide for it.
Outcome
Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeals
Facts
The appellant was charged before Kajjansi Magistrates Court. On 30 September 2020, the prosecution applied to amend the charge sheet. The appellant's counsel objected on the ground that the prosecution had not sought leave of court or heard from the defence before making the amendment. The trial magistrate ruled that no provision required leave and dismissed the objection. The appellant appealed against that ruling to the High Court, arguing that the charge sheet should not have been amended without leave of court.
Issues
- Whether there is a right of appeal against an interlocutory ruling in criminal proceedings before a magistrate's court.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (1)
Cases cited (1)
- Twagira v Uganda [2003] 2 EA 689
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.