Wakilii

Soon Yeon Kong Kim and Another v Attorney General (Constitutional Reference 6 of 2007)

Constitutional Court · [2008] UGCC 54 · 2008 Reference Answered for the Applicants AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Constitutional reference from a Chief Magistrate's Court under Article 137(5)(b) seeking interpretation of Article 28 of the Constitution
Decision
Constitutional reference answered in favour of the applicants: Article 28 interpreted as entitling an accused to pre-trial disclosure of prosecution statements and exhibits, subject to limitations the prosecution must establish

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 3 Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

Good law Followed in 3 cases and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. Citations rising — 24 citing cases on record, 10 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 Constitutional Court held that the right to a fair hearing guaranteed by Article 28(1) and (3) of the Constitution contains within it the right to pre-trial disclosure of material witness statements and documentary exhibits, as the only way to ensure equality between the contestants in litigation and to avoid trial by ambush. An accused person in a Magistrate's Court is therefore prima facie entitled to disclosure of police statements of prosecution witnesses and of prosecution exhibits. The right is not absolute: disclosure may be denied where the prosecution establishes by evidence grounds such as state secrets, protection of witnesses, protection of informers, or the simplicity of the case. The timing of disclosure lies in the trial court's discretion.

Outcome

Constitutional reference answered in favour of the applicants: Article 28 interpreted as entitling an accused to pre-trial disclosure of prosecution statements and exhibits, subject to limitations the prosecution must establish

Facts

The applicants, Korean nationals, were charged before a Magistrate Grade One at the Chief Magistrates Court of Buganda Road with several counts of various offences under the Penal Code Act (Criminal Case No. 4288 of 2005). Before the applicants pleaded to the charges, their counsel applied to the trial court for an order that the Director of Public Prosecutions supply them with copies of all statements made to police by potential prosecution witnesses and copies of all exhibits the prosecution would rely on at trial, to enable them prepare their defence. The application was framed under Article 28 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair hearing. Determining the application required interpretation of those constitutional provisions, so the trial magistrate referred the question to the Constitutional Court for interpretation under Article 137(5)(b).

Issues

  1. Whether, on the plain, natural and practical meaning of Article 28(1)(3)(a)(c)(d) and (g) of the Constitution, an accused person in a Magistrate's Court is entitled, before pleading, to disclosure of copies of statements made to police by prosecution witnesses and copies of documentary exhibits the prosecution intends to rely on at trial.

Orders

  • Article 28(1)(3)(a)(c)(d) and (g) of the Constitution, in their plain, natural and practical meaning, prima facie entitle an accused person in a Magistrate's Court to disclosure of copies of statements made to police by the would-be witnesses for the prosecution.
  • Such an accused person is prima facie entitled to disclosure of copies of documentary exhibits which the prosecution is to produce at the trial.
  • The disclosure is subject to limitations to be established through evidence by the prosecution.

Rules and key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Right to a Fair Hearing (Article 28) — Right to Pre-trial Disclosure
The right to a fair hearing guaranteed by Article 28(1) and (3) of the Constitution contains within it the right to pre-trial disclosure of material witness statements and documentary exhibits, this being the only way to ensure equality between the contestants in litigation.
Criminal Procedure — Pre-trial Disclosure — Entitlement of Accused in Magistrate's Court
An accused person charged in a Magistrate's Court is prima facie entitled, before pleading, to disclosure of copies of police statements of prosecution witnesses and of documentary exhibits the prosecution intends to rely on at trial.
Criminal Procedure — Pre-trial Disclosure — Limitations and Timing
The right to disclosure is not absolute; the prosecution may justify denial by evidence on grounds such as state secrets, protection of witnesses, protection of informers, or the simplicity of the case, and the timing of disclosure lies within the discretion of the trial court depending on the justice of each case.
Fair Trial — Equality of Arms — Prohibition on Trial by Ambush
In an open and democratic society founded on freedom and equality and the rule of law, courts cannot approve of trial by ambush; the right to a fair hearing envisages equality between the contestants in litigation, and neither party may withhold material information from the other without just cause.
Constitutional Interpretation — Use of In Pari Materia International and Foreign Authorities
Where provisions of the Constitution are in pari materia with provisions of international human rights instruments and foreign constitutions, judicial considerations of those equivalent provisions are persuasive authority in interpreting the Ugandan Constitution.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (5)

  • Juma v Attorney General of Kenya (2003) 2 EA 461
  • Shabalala v Attorney General of Transvaal (1995) 2 SACR 761 (CC)
  • Kiiza Besigye and 22 Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 12 of 2006)
  • Attorney General v Tinyefunza (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Onuoha Kalu v The State (1998) 13 NWLR 531

Cases citing this judgment (23)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Soon Yeon Kong Kim and Another v Attorney General (Constitutional Reference 6 of 2007) [2008] UGCC 54 (7 March 2008)
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.