Wakilii

Rtd. Col. Dr. Kizza Besigye & Another v Attorney General & Another (Miscellaneous Cause 31 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCD 29 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum following Supreme Court decision declaring trial of civilians before General Court Martial unconstitutional
Decision
Application dismissed as moot after applicants were formally charged and remanded in Chief Magistrates Court during pendency of habeas corpus application

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

Application for writ of habeas corpus dismissed as moot. The applicants, who had been detained following charges before the General Court Martial and sought release after the Supreme Court declared civilian trials before the GCM unconstitutional, were formally charged and remanded in the Chief Magistrates Court at Nakawa during the pendency of this application. The court took judicial notice of these proceedings under section 56 of the Evidence Act, rendering the habeas corpus application unnecessary.

Outcome

Application dismissed as moot after applicants were formally charged and remanded in Chief Magistrates Court during pendency of habeas corpus application

Facts

On 16 November 2024, the applicants were allegedly abducted from Nairobi, Kenya, and transferred to Uganda, where they were detained at Makindye military barracks. On 20 November 2024, they were arraigned before the General Court Martial and charged with security-related offences, including treachery and unlawful possession of firearms. They were remanded to Luzira Maximum Prison and last appeared before the GCM on 14 January 2025. On 31 January 2025, the Supreme Court in Attorney General v Hon. Michael Kabaziguruka declared that trial of civilians before the GCM is unconstitutional and ordered that all charges or ongoing trials involving civilians before the court martial must cease and be transferred to ordinary courts. The applicants filed this habeas corpus application contending that they remained in unlawful detention without valid remand warrants following the Supreme Court decision. During the pendency of this application, on 21 February 2025, the applicants were formally charged and remanded in the Chief Magistrates Court of Nakawa.

Issues

  1. Whether on the basis of the decree of the Supreme Court declaring trial of civilians before the General Court Martial unconstitutional, the applicants remain in unlawful detention to warrant the grant of a writ of habeas corpus.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No orders as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Habeas Corpus — Grounds for Application — Mootness — Subsequent charging in competent court
An application for a writ of habeas corpus becomes moot where, during the pendency of the application, the applicants are formally charged and remanded in a court of competent jurisdiction, thereby providing a lawful basis for their continued detention.
Human Rights — Personal Liberty — Habeas Corpus — Writ as non-derogable remedy — Purpose and scope
The writ of habeas corpus is a non-derogable constitutional remedy that seeks to protect personal liberty by enabling courts to examine the lawfulness of a person's arrest, imprisonment, and detention, and is intended to discourage incommunicado detentions where there is no legal basis and to ensure that persons are produced before courts dead or alive.
Civil Procedure — Habeas Corpus — Retroactive validation of detention — Effect of subsequent proceedings
A writ of habeas corpus will not be granted where the continuous detention of the applicant can be justified by valid intervening factors, and it matters not if the previous arrest and detention were invalid because subsequent proceedings will retroactively validate those acts.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Detention — Lawfulness — Prison admission requirements — Valid warrant required
Under section 57 of the Prisons Act, no person shall be received or admitted into prison custody without a valid commitment or remand warrant, order of detention, warrant of conviction or committal signed with a court seal or authenticated by a person authorised to sign or authenticate such warrant or order under the provision of any law.

Legislation cited (14)

Cases cited (7)

  • Grace Ibingira and Ors v Uganda (1966) 446
  • R v Brixton Prison Governor, Ex Parte Ahson and Others [1969] 2 QB 222
  • Jovia Karuhanga v The Inspector General of Police (Miscellaneous Cause No. 86 of 2013)
  • In the matter of Sheik Abdul Karim Sentamu & Another (Constitutional Reference No. 7 of 1998)
  • Queen v Well (1882) 9 QBD 70
  • In the matter of an application for a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum by Kyagulanyi Sentamu Robert (Miscellaneous Cause No. 16 of 2021)
  • Attorney General v Hon. Michael Kabaziguruka (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 2021)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rtd. Col. Dr. Kizza Besigye & Another v Attorney General & Another (Miscellaneous Cause 31 of 2025) [2025] UGHCCD 29 (24 February 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.