Wakilii

Terzol Jobey v Kirunda Joseph alias Kirunda Joseph Dan (Miscellaneous Cause No. 254 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCD 243 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for enforcement of fundamental human rights under Article 23, 24, 44(a) and 50 of the Constitution
Decision
Application dismissed for want of a cause of action against the respondent

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 a complainant who reports a matter to police is not liable for the subsequent arrest, prosecution, and detention of the accused person. The Director of Public Prosecutions exercises independent prosecutorial discretion under Article 120 of the Constitution. Making a complaint does not infer liability onto the complainant. The application disclosed no cause of action against the respondent and was dismissed.

Outcome

Application dismissed for want of a cause of action against the respondent

Facts

The applicant founded Ultiosa Uganda Limited and entered into an agreement to sell a pharmaceutical business to the respondent for UGX 37,000,000. The respondent made part payment but allegedly failed to complete payment. A dispute arose over settlement and compensation. The respondent reported the matter to Old Kampala Police Station, alleging the applicant obtained UGX 37,000,000 by false pretences. The applicant was arrested, charged at Buganda Road Court, and remanded to Luzira prison. The state attorney later withdrew the charges. The applicant brought this application seeking declarations that the respondent's conduct in instituting criminal charges violated his constitutional rights to liberty, dignity, and protection from inhuman treatment, and claiming compensation totalling UGX 155,550,000.

Issues

  1. Whether the application discloses a cause of action.
  2. Whether the applicant is entitled to the prayers and remedies sought.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Cause of Action — Rejection of Plaint — Order 7 Rule 11
Under Order 7 rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules, a plaint shall be rejected where it does not disclose a cause of action. A cause of action consists of three elements: that the plaintiff enjoyed a right, that the right has been violated, and that the defendant is liable.
Constitutional Law — Director of Public Prosecutions — Prosecutorial Independence — Article 120
The Director of Public Prosecutions exercises prosecutorial functions independently under Article 120 of the Constitution and is not subject to the direction or control of any person or authority. The DPP has exclusive authority to institute, take over, continue, or discontinue criminal proceedings, and makes informed decisions on who to charge based on the public interest and the administration of justice.
Tort Law — Malicious Prosecution — Liability of Complainant — Cause of Action
A complainant who reports a matter to police is not liable for the subsequent arrest, prosecution, and detention of the accused person. Making a complaint does not infer liability onto the complainant, as the complainant is not the determinant of whether to prosecute or not. Liability for malicious prosecution would only arise in a suit for malicious prosecution and unlawful arrest by a private citizen leading to private prosecution.
Constitutional Law — Public Policy — Encouraging Legitimate Complaints
It would be contrary to public policy and the interests of justice to hold complainants liable for the prosecution and incarceration of persons they complain against, as this would discourage legitimate complaints and claims.

Legislation cited (24)

Cases cited (3)

  • Wanyama Bwedene Seperia v Kampala Capital City Authority (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 26 of 2021)
  • Ambrose Kagangure v Dfcu Bank Limited and Another (HCCS No. 388 of 2012)
  • Auto Garage v Motokov [1971] EA 514

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Terzol Jobey v Kirunda Joseph alias Kirunda Joseph Dan (Miscellaneous Cause No. 254 of 2024) [2025] UGHCCD 243 (30 September 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.