Wakilii

Twala Caroline and Others v Director of Public Prosecutions [2026] UGCA 116

Court of Appeal · 2026 Appeal Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal to the Court of Appeal against a High Court order dismissing an application for revision of a trial magistrate's findings
Decision
Appeal struck out for want of jurisdiction

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 Court of Appeal addressed a preliminary objection that the appellants had no right of appeal against the High Court's revision order. It held that appellate jurisdiction is a creature of statute and there is no inherent appellate jurisdiction; a right of appeal exists only where a statute expressly provides for it. Following the Supreme Court's binding decision in Faustine Ntambara v Benon Sebujisho, and finding that neither the Judicature Act, the Civil Procedure Act, nor sections 48 and 50 of the Criminal Procedure Code Act create an appeal from a revision decision, the Court held that revision decisions are final. It therefore had no jurisdiction and struck out the appeal.

Outcome

Appeal struck out for want of jurisdiction

Facts

The appellants were charged before the Chief Magistrate of Entebbe with malicious damage to property and criminal trespass in Criminal Case No. 84 of 2017. During the trial, the magistrate found that the appellants had a case to answer. Dissatisfied with that finding and the manner in which the proceedings had been conducted, the appellants applied to the High Court (Revision Cause No. 22 of 2019) for revision, contending that the proceedings were tainted with various irregularities and illegalities. The High Court, per Justice Jane Frances Abodo, held that no injustice had been occasioned to the appellants and found that granting the application would amount to an abuse of court process, particularly because the trial had not yet been concluded. The application was dismissed. The appellants, being dissatisfied with the revision orders, appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against a decision of the High Court made in the exercise of its revisionary jurisdiction.

Orders

  • Appeal struck out.

Rules and key headnotes

Appeals — Appellate Jurisdiction — Creature of Statute
Appellate jurisdiction is a creature of statute; there is no inherent appellate jurisdiction, and a right of appeal exists only where a statute expressly provides for it.
Revision — Finality — No Appeal from High Court Revision Order
No appeal lies to the Court of Appeal from a decision of the High Court made in the exercise of its revisionary jurisdiction; such a decision is final, as no statute prescribes an appeal from a revision order.
Jurisdiction — Want of Jurisdiction — Effect
A court that acts without jurisdiction acts illegally, and any judgment and the proceedings founded thereon are a nullity; where no express statutory right of appeal exists, the appeal must be struck out.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (5)

  • Faustine Ntambara v Benon Sebujisho (SCCA No. 08 of 2024)
  • Eseza Byakika v National Social Security Fund (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2024)
  • Desai v Warsama [1964] EA 351
  • Kaggwa Hannington and 5 Others v Prosecutor (Revision Cause No. 005 of 2018)
  • Charles Harry Nagira v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 03 of 2003)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Twala Caroline and Others v Director of Public Prosecutions 2026 UGCA 116 (2 April 2026)
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.