Wakilii

Ssemakadde v Uganda (Private Prosecution by Byamazima Joshua and Tonny Tumukunde) (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 30 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCRD 17 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of criminal proceedings pending determination of revision application
Decision
Proceedings in the lower court stayed pending determination of revision 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

The High Court held that criminal proceedings in a private prosecution commence when a complaint on oath is filed, not at plea-taking. The applicant established a prima facie case warranting revision on the ground that the legal framework for private prosecutions raises questions about the right to a fair hearing, particularly regarding disclosure obligations. The balance of convenience favoured granting a stay to preserve the applicant's liberty pending revision. Application allowed; proceedings stayed.

Outcome

Proceedings in the lower court stayed pending determination of revision application

Facts

Isaac Kimaze Ssemakadde, President of the Uganda Law Society, was the subject of a private prosecution initiated by Byamazima Joshua and Tonny Tumukunde. The private prosecutors alleged that on 18 November 2024, at a symposium in Kampala, Ssemakadde uttered offensive words referring to the Director of Public Prosecutions, Hon. Justice Jane Frances Abodo, including calling her a "vagina from Karamoja" and other derogatory terms. The complainants filed a complaint on oath seeking criminal summons for the offence of insulting the modesty of a woman contrary to section 115(3) of the Penal Code Act. The Chief Magistrate at Buganda Road sanctioned the charge and issued criminal summons. Ssemakadde filed an application to dismiss the complaint, which was dismissed. He then filed a revision application in the High Court challenging the Chief Magistrate's decisions, and simultaneously sought a stay of the criminal proceedings pending determination of the revision.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for stay of proceedings is premature, misconceived, and incompetent.
  2. Whether Criminal Case No. 913 of 2024 should be stayed pending the determination of Revision Case No. 002 of 2025.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • The Chief Magistrate's Court of Buganda Road is directed to stay proceedings in Uganda (Private Prosecution by Byamazima Joshua and Tonny Tumukunde) v Isaac Kimaze Ssemakadde, Buganda Road Chief Magistrates' Criminal Case No. 913 of 2024, pending the determination of Isaac Kimaze Ssemakadde v Uganda (Private Prosecution by Byamazima Joshua and Tonny Tumukunde), Criminal Revision Case No. 002 of 2025.
  • The Applicant must file submissions in Criminal Revision Case No. 002 of 2025 by 23rd April 2025.
  • The Respondents must file their reply by 2nd May 2025.
  • Any rejoinder must be filed by 7th May 2025.
  • The Court will issue its Ruling on notice.

Rules and key headnotes

Private Prosecutions — Commencement of Proceedings — When Criminal Proceedings Begin
Criminal proceedings in a private prosecution commence when an individual files a complaint on oath with a magistrate under section 42(3) of the Magistrates Courts Act, not when the accused takes a plea.
Stay of Proceedings — Test for Granting Stay Pending Revision
For an application for stay of criminal proceedings pending revision to succeed, the applicant must show: (1) a prima facie case that is neither frivolous nor vexatious with a probability of success; (2) that failure to grant the stay will cause irreparable damage that cannot be compensated by damages; and (3) if the court is in doubt on either of the first two requirements, the balance of convenience must favour the applicant.
Private Prosecutions — Jurisdiction of Chief Magistrate — Subject Matter and Geographic Jurisdiction
A Chief Magistrate has jurisdiction to entertain a private prosecution where the alleged offence falls within the subject matter jurisdiction conferred by section 161(1)(a) of the Magistrates Court Act (any offence not carrying the death penalty) and the offence was committed within the geographic area specified in the Magistrates Court (Magisterial Areas) Instrument.
Private Prosecutions — Prima Facie Case — Test for Sanctioning Private Prosecution
Before sanctioning a private prosecution under section 42(5) of the Magistrates Courts Act, a magistrate must be satisfied that prima facie the commission of an offence has been disclosed and that the complaint is not frivolous or vexatious. The test is whether the complaint raises a presumption of fact unless contradicted by other evidence, not whether the evidence is conclusive.
Private Prosecutions — Reasonable and Probable Cause — Meaning and Application
Reasonable and probable cause under section 42(3) of the Magistrates Courts Act means an honest belief in the guilt of the accused based on a full conviction, founded upon reasonable grounds, of the existence of circumstances which, assuming them to be true, would reasonably lead an ordinarily prudent and cautious person to the conclusion that the person charged was probably guilty of the offence imputed. It requires more than mere suspicion and some level of evidence or support for the belief.
Freedom of Expression — Limitations — Balance with Rights of Others
While Article 29(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression, this right is not absolute and is subject to limitations under Article 43 to protect the rights of others and public interest. Speech that insults the modesty of a woman contrary to section 115(3) of the Penal Code Act may fall outside constitutional protection unless the speaker demonstrates that the words are acceptable and demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society.
Private Prosecutions — Duty of Candour and Disclosure — Right to Fair Hearing
The legal framework for private prosecutions in Uganda is unclear and underdeveloped, particularly regarding disclosure obligations, the rights of prospective accused persons, the roles and duties of private prosecutors, and the role of the victim. These gaps may affect an accused person's right to a fair hearing under Article 44(c) of the Constitution and warrant judicial examination on revision.

Legislation cited (27)

Cases cited (19)

  • Davis Wesley Tusingwire v Attorney General (Constitutional Application No. 6 of 2013)
  • Ananias Tumukunde v Attorney General (Constitutional Application No. 3 of 2009)
  • Hwan Sung Industries Ltd v Tajdin Hussein and Others (Civil Application No. 19 of 2008)
  • Caleb Alaka v Vincent Jjako Akawuwo Kigozi (HCMA No. 611 of 2012)
  • Kintu Nteza Felix v Uganda (Criminal Application No. 10 of 2023)
  • Mpuuma K Leornard v Uganda (HCMA No. 325 of 2006)
  • Joo v Republic (Criminal Appeal No. E009 of 2020)
  • Goddy Mwakio and Another vs Republic (2011), the Court of Appeal of Kenya
  • Ssali Vicent v Uganda (HCMA No. 035 of 2022)
  • Male Mabirizi Kiwanuka v Hon Mao Norbert & Others (Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2023)
  • Rutayisire Alphonse and Another v URA (HCMC No. 236 of 2020)
  • Ojangole Patricia and Others v AG (HCMC No. 303 of 2013)
  • Kalule Ahmed Mukasa v NSSF (HCMA No. 174 of 2022)
  • President of the Republic of South Africa vs Zuma and Others (062027/2022{2023} ZAGPJHC 11, 2023)
  • Kasibante Moses v Katongole Singh Marwaka & Anor (Kampala Election Petition No. 23 of 2011)
  • Ahmed Kawoza Kangu v Bangu Aggrey Fred & Anor (SCC Application No. 4 of 2007)
  • Amina Mpimbi v. Ramadhani Kiwe, 1990 TLR 6 (HC)
  • Edmund Mjengwa and six others v. John Mgaya and four others, Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 1999
  • Basajabala v Kakande (Criminal Revision Case No. 02 of 2013)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ssemakadde v Uganda (Private Prosecution by Byamazima Joshua and Tonny Tumukunde) (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 30 of 2025) [2025] UGHCCRD 17 (11 April 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.