Uganda v Bogere Galiwango (Criminal Session Case 2 of 2025)
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 an accused person aged 17 years at the time of the alleged offence and arraignment is a child under the Children Act and must be tried under that Act, not as an adult. The court found that charging the accused as an adult, remanding him in adult custody, and remanding him for over two years violated the Children Act, which limits remand to 45 days for offences other than those punishable by death and prohibits remand in adult facilities. The court exercised its inherent powers under Section 17(2) of the Judicature Act to quash the indictment and terminate proceedings, ordering the accused's immediate release.
Outcome
Accused ordered released forthwith following termination of proceedings
Facts
The accused, Bogere Galiwango, was charged with aggravated defilement contrary to Section 116(1) of the Penal Code Act. The victim was a child aged 7 years. The alleged offence occurred on October 29, 2023, and the accused was arraigned on November 3, 2023. At both dates, the accused was 17 years old, as confirmed by his National Identity Card showing a date of birth of December 23, 2005. The prosecution's PF24A form incorrectly recorded the accused's age as 18 years. The accused pleaded not guilty. He had been remanded in adult custody at Kigo Prisons for 2 years 5 months and 25 days. Upon reviewing the charge sheet and the accused's age documentation, the court raised the issue of whether the accused should have been charged and tried as a child under the Children Act.
Issues
- Whether the accused, being 17 years old at the time of the alleged offence and arraignment, should have been charged and tried under the Children Act rather than as an adult.
- Whether the remand of the accused for 2 years 5 months and 25 days exceeded the statutory limit under the Children Act.
- Whether the court should exercise its inherent powers under the Judicature Act to terminate proceedings that violate the Children Act.
Orders
- The indictment of the accused minor is quashed.
- Proceedings in this indictment are terminated in exercise of the High Court's powers under Section 17(2) of the Judicature Act.
- The accused is ordered released forthwith, unless held on other lawful orders.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (13)
- Children Act Cap 62 s.2
- Children Act s.133(1)
- Children Act s.133(3)
- Children Act s.135(1)
- Children Act s.136
- Children Act s.136(5)
- Children Act s.136(6)
- Children Act s.139(1)(g)
- Penal Code Act Cap 128 s.116(1)
- Penal Code Act s.116(3)
- Penal Code Act s.116(4)(a)
- Trial on Indictments Act Cap 25
- Judicature Act Cap 16 s.17(2)
Cases cited (2)
- AJ (a minor) v Uganda (Criminal Case No. 41 of 2025)
- Uganda v Kakube Stone alias Topher (Criminal Session Case No. 74 of 2022)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.