Sebyala v Attorney General & Anor (MA . NO. 10 OF 2017)

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

Held that a court with competent jurisdiction cannot be held in contempt by another court of equivalent jurisdiction. The General Court Martial did not disobey High Court orders by charging the applicant with different offences in GCM 19 of 2016 from those in GCM 15 of 2015, as the Prosecutor General retained prosecutorial discretion to prefer new charges based on the same date's conduct. The High Court order suppressing tortured evidence related only to the applicant's admission of stealing ammunition and did not preclude prosecution for other offences or use of other evidence.

Outcome

Application for contempt dismissed; applicant remains convicted and serving sentence in GCM 19 of 2016

Facts

The applicant was charged before the General Court Martial in GCM 15 of 2015 with failing to protect war materials. In HCMC 163 of 2016, the High Court stayed proceedings in GCM 15 of 2015, ordered the applicant's discharge, and suppressed evidence obtained through torture — specifically the applicant's admission under duress that he stole missing ammunition. Despite this order, the General Court Martial commenced fresh proceedings in GCM 19 of 2016, charging the applicant with disclosing confidential defence materials to the public and trespassing on a Somali civilian's property, both offences allegedly committed on the same date (12 June 2015) in Barawe, Somalia. The applicant was convicted and sentenced in GCM 19 of 2016. The applicant then moved the High Court seeking declarations of contempt, setting aside of the conviction, his discharge, and damages.

Issues

1. Whether a court of competent jurisdiction can be held in contempt by another court of competent or equivalent jurisdiction.
2. Whether the General Court Martial disobeyed the High Court order to discharge the applicant in GCM 15 of 2015.
3. Whether the General Court Martial disobeyed the High Court order suppressing evidence obtained through torture.
4. Whether the second respondent was properly joined as a party to the contempt application.

Orders

• Application dismissed.
• No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (8)

• Judicature Act s.14
• Judicature Act s.33
• Judicature Act s.39(2)
• Civil Procedure Act s.98
• UPDF Act s.130
• UPDF Act s.178(1)(2)(5)(b)
• UPDF Act s.122(1)(2)(g)
• Amnesty Act

Cases cited (6)

• Uganda Super League Ltd v Attorney General (Constitutional Application No. 73 of 2013)
• Const. Applic. No. 41 of 2013
• Ayebazibwe Raymond v Barclays Bank (HCMA No. 283 of 2012)
• Prof. Gilbert Bukenya v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 30 of 2011)
• Behangana Domaro v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 53 of 2010)
• Uganda v Thomas Kwoyelo (Supreme Court Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2012)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

• Kalule v Deustche Gesellschaft Fuer Internationale Zuzammenarbeit (GIZ) GMBH (Labour Dispute Reference 109 of 2020)

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