Wakilii

Ndimubona Henry v Uganda (Criminal Revision Case No. 2 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 148 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal revision application from ongoing magistrate's court trial
Decision
Application dismissed; matter remitted to magistrate's court for continuation of trial

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 dismissed a criminal revision application challenging a magistrate's finding of a prima facie case based on a charge sheet citing the wrong section. The court held that citing section 218 instead of 219 of the Penal Code Act was a typing error that did not affect the substance of the charge where the particulars clearly stated the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The court further held that revisional jurisdiction applies only to final orders, not interim rulings during ongoing trials.

Outcome

Application dismissed; matter remitted to magistrate's court for continuation of trial

Facts

The applicant was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm on 21 January 2025. The charge sheet cited section 218 of the Penal Code Act Cap 128, which refers to common assaults, instead of section 219, which covers assault occasioning actual bodily harm. After the prosecution closed its case, the trial magistrate found a prima facie case and put the applicant on his defence. The defence challenged the charge as defective due to the wrong section citation. The trial magistrate ruled that the section was wrong and ordered the prosecution to amend the charge sheet. The applicant then filed a criminal revision application to the High Court seeking to be set free, arguing that the prima facie ruling was based on a defective charge sheet.

Issues

  1. Whether a charge sheet citing the wrong section number but containing correct particulars of offence is defective and warrants acquittal.
  2. Whether the High Court should exercise its revisional jurisdiction to interfere with an interim ruling during an ongoing trial in the magistrate's court.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Applicant to proceed with his defence before the trial magistrate.
  • Trial magistrate's order for amendment of the charge sheet to reflect the correct section upheld.

Rules and key headnotes

Defective Charges — Wrong Section Citation — Effect on Validity
A charge sheet that cites the wrong section number but contains correct and clear particulars of the offence is not defective where the error is a typing mistake that does not affect the substance of the charge or prejudice the accused's defence.
Amendment of Charges — Magistrate's Power
A trial magistrate is entitled to direct amendment of a charge sheet to correct a wrong section citation at any time before judgment, and such amendment does not prejudice the accused where the particulars of offence and evidence adduced remain clear and consistent.
Revisional Jurisdiction — Scope and Limits — Interim Orders
The High Court's power of revision under sections 48 and 50 of the Criminal Procedure Code Act applies only to final orders, not to interim rulings such as a finding of a prima facie case during an ongoing trial.
Revisional Jurisdiction — Interference with Trial Court Discretion
It is not appropriate for the High Court to interfere with the discretionary powers of a trial magistrate during an ongoing trial by imposing its own rulings, as this would amount to the High Court trying a case concurrently with the magistrate.

Legislation cited (4)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ndimubona Henry v Uganda (Criminal Revision Case No. 2 of 2025) [2026] UGHC 148 (23 February 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.