Wakilii

SP Ajuna Mark v Attorney General and Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 238 of 2021)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 23 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review seeking orders of prohibition, certiorari, mandamus, declaration, and damages following dismissal from Uganda Police Force by police disciplinary court after criminal acquittal
Decision
Application for judicial review dismissed; police disciplinary proceedings upheld as lawful

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

Held that disciplinary proceedings against a police officer following criminal acquittal do not constitute double jeopardy. Police disciplinary proceedings under the Police Act and criminal proceedings serve distinct purposes with different standards of proof and objectives. Disciplinary proceedings aim to maintain administrative integrity, not to punish criminally. The institution of disciplinary proceedings after criminal acquittal is lawful under Police Act s.44 and Guideline 2.13 of the Uganda Police Force Disciplinary Courts. Application dismissed.

Outcome

Application for judicial review dismissed; police disciplinary proceedings upheld as lawful

Facts

The applicant, SP Ajuna Mark, was a serving police officer deployed as DPC Kumi District. He was charged with embezzlement and abuse of office in the Chief Magistrate's Court Anti-Corruption Division and acquitted. On appeal, the High Court Anti-Corruption Division upheld the acquittal. Subsequently, the Inspector General of Police constituted a Police Standby Disciplinary Court which tried the applicant for discreditable/irregular conduct based on the same underlying facts. The disciplinary court found him guilty and recommended dismissal on 15 January 2020, with judgment delivered 17 May 2021. The applicant filed for judicial review on 12 August 2021, arguing the disciplinary proceedings constituted double jeopardy and were unlawful. The respondents contended the applicant was tried for a different offence under police disciplinary code, that he remained on the payroll, and that his appeal to the police appeals court was pending.

Issues

  1. Whether subjecting the applicant to proceedings in the Police Standby Disciplinary Court is unlawful.
  2. Whether the applicant is entitled to the remedies sought.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Time Limits — Three-Month Period
An application for judicial review must be made promptly and in any event within three months from the date when the grounds of the application first arose, unless the court considers there is good reason for extending the period.
Police Disciplinary Proceedings — Relationship with Criminal Proceedings — Double Jeopardy
The institution of disciplinary proceedings against a police officer after acquittal in criminal proceedings does not amount to double jeopardy. Disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings serve distinct purposes, apply different standards of proof, and may proceed simultaneously.
Double Jeopardy — Article 28(9) — Scope and Application
The constitutional protection against double jeopardy under Article 28(9) applies only to criminal proceedings before competent courts. It does not prevent disciplinary proceedings under administrative law from being instituted on the same facts following criminal acquittal or conviction.
Disciplinary Proceedings — Standard of Proof — Distinction from Criminal Standard
The quality of evidence required to hold a public servant guilty in disciplinary proceedings is not the same as that required in criminal proceedings. Technical rules of the Evidence Act do not apply to disciplinary proceedings. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts, subject to there being some evidence on record to support the findings.
Judicial Review — Scope of Review of Disciplinary Decisions
Judicial review of disciplinary authority decisions is extremely limited in scope. The court does not ensure that the conclusion reached is necessarily correct in its eyes. The court will only interfere if there is no evidence, or if the findings are perverse such that no reasonable person would reach such a decision.
Police Disciplinary Code — Legal Framework — Police Act s.44
Section 44 of the Police Act Cap 303 establishes the police disciplinary code of conduct for the disciplinary control of the police force. Section 6 empowers the Inspector General of Police to make standing orders on matters of administration, discipline, police duties and procedures. Disciplinary proceedings conducted under this framework are lawful.

Legislation cited (19)

Cases cited (3)

  • IP Mugumya v Attorney General (HCMC No. 116 of 2015)
  • Uganda v Adriko Ismail & Adukule Ali (Criminal Case No. 122 of 2017)
  • Geoffrey Kisembo v Standard Chartered Bank Uganda Ltd (HCMApp No. 344 of 2014)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

SP Ajuna Mark v Attorney General and Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 238 of 2021) [2023] UGHCCD 23 (20 February 2023)
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.