Wakilii

Uganda v Col. (Rtd) Dr. Kizza Besigye and Another (Criminal Sessions Case 335 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCRD 46 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Pre-trial ruling on preliminary objections following committal from Nakawa Chief Magistrate's Court
Decision
Preliminary objections dismissed; matter to proceed to scheduling and plea taking in Criminal Division

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 Criminal Division has proper jurisdiction to try treason and misprision of treason charges. The committal order from the Chief Magistrate's Court properly forwarded the case to the Criminal Division, and the reference to International Crimes Division in the notice to accused persons was a typographical error. A judge's adverse ruling on a bail application does not constitute bias or incompetence warranting recusal. The test for recusal requires a fair-minded and informed observer to conclude there is a real possibility of bias, not mere dissatisfaction with a decision.

Outcome

Preliminary objections dismissed; matter to proceed to scheduling and plea taking in Criminal Division

Facts

Three accused persons were charged in Nakawa Chief Magistrate's Court on 21 February 2025 with treason and misprision of treason. They were committed to the High Court on 29 May 2025. The file was forwarded to the Criminal Division on 27 June 2025 and allocated to the trial judge on 2 July 2025. When the matter came up for scheduling and plea taking on 8 October 2025, the first accused raised objections concerning jurisdiction and alleged bias, claiming the court should have been the International Crimes Division and that the trial judge should recuse himself based on an earlier ruling denying mandatory bail. The third accused raised an issue concerning his identity in the indictment. The accused persons had previously filed multiple bail applications in the Criminal Division between February and May 2025.

Issues

  1. Whether the Criminal Division of the High Court has jurisdiction to try the accused persons or whether the file should be transferred to the International Crimes Division.
  2. Whether the trial judge is incompetent or biased and should recuse himself from the trial based on his ruling denying mandatory bail.
  3. Whether the identity of the third accused person in the indictment is correct.

Orders

  • The application by the accused persons to transfer the file to ICD for lack of jurisdiction is dismissed.
  • The application for recusal based on incompetence or bias is dismissed.
  • The issue of identity for A3 will be sorted during scheduling before plea taking.
  • The main case is fixed for scheduling and plea taking.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Law & Procedure — Jurisdiction — High Court Criminal Division — Treason and Misprision of Treason — Proper Division for Trial
The Criminal Division of the High Court has jurisdiction to try offences of treason and misprision of treason under the Penal Code Act. Where a Chief Magistrate commits accused persons to the High Court without specifying a division, and the file is properly forwarded to and registered in the Criminal Division, that division has proper jurisdiction to conduct the trial.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Jurisdiction — Conduct of Parties — Filing Applications in a Division as Recognition of Jurisdiction
Where accused persons and their lawyers file multiple applications in a particular division of the High Court arising from the same criminal case, such conduct demonstrates their recognition that the division has jurisdiction over the matter. A subsequent challenge to jurisdiction after filing such applications constitutes an afterthought and an attempt to frustrate the trial.
Administrative Law — Judicial Recusal — Test for Bias — Fair-Minded and Informed Observer
The test for judicial recusal is whether a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there is a real possibility that the tribunal was biased. The test requires assessment by a reasonable mind, not a suspicious mind.
Administrative Law — Judicial Recusal — Adverse Ruling — Insufficient Ground for Recusal
A judge's decision to deny bail to an accused person does not constitute incompetence or bias warranting recusal. Litigants cannot use decisions that are not in their favour to make allegations of incompetence or bias. Where parties are dissatisfied with a decision, the proper remedy lies in the appellate process, not in seeking recusal.
Administrative Law — Judicial Recusal — Complaint to Judicial Service Commission — Not a Bar to Proceedings
A complaint lodged by a party with the Judicial Service Commission against a trial judge does not operate as a bar or stay of proceedings. To hold otherwise would create an absurdity whereby any litigant could prevent a judicial officer from hearing a case simply by lodging a complaint.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (4)

  • Porter v Magill [2002] 1 All ER 465
  • Re Medicaments and Related Classes of Goods (No.2) [2001] 1 WLR 700
  • Attorney General v Prof. Anyang'Nyong'o and 10 Others [2007] 1 EA 12
  • Yasin Juma v Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 1993)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Col. (Rtd) Dr. Kizza Besigye and Another (Criminal Sessions Case 335 of 2025) [2025] UGHCCRD 46 (15 October 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.