Wakilii

Uganda v Gurindwa (HCT-00-AC-CM 5 of 2015)

High Court · [2015] UGHCACD 2 · 2015 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by the Director of Public Prosecutions seeking orders that the hearing and delivery of judgment in a tax evasion prosecution proceed in the absence of the accused who absconded after being put on his defence
Decision
Matter to proceed to final submissions and judgment in the absence of the accused

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 1 Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

Good law Followed in 1 case and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 where an accused person of sound mind, properly notified of trial, voluntarily absconded after being put on his defence, he waived his constitutional right to be present. The court may proceed to hear and determine the case in his absence without breaching Article 28(5) of the Constitution, provided the accused was served, had opportunity to instruct counsel, and knew his obligation to attend.

Outcome

Matter to proceed to final submissions and judgment in the absence of the accused

Facts

The accused was charged with five co-accused persons on several counts of tax evasion involving UGX 1,908,278,739. Five co-accused pleaded guilty and were sentenced. The respondent stood trial. The prosecution called 11 witnesses, after which the court found a prima facie case and put the accused on his defence on 24 April 2013. The matter was adjourned to 10 May 2013 for the defence case. On that date, the accused did not appear. His advocate could not locate him. Sureties attended on 22 May 2013 but had failed to trace him. The accused remained absent for one year and seven months. On 27 January 2015, the DPP applied for the trial to proceed in his absence. A summons commanding personal attendance was published in the New Vision on 18 February 2015. On the hearing date, counsel instructed by the accused appeared but stated she did not know his whereabouts. The accused did not file a reply to the application.

Issues

  1. Whether a criminal court in Uganda can conduct a trial in the absence of the accused person where the accused has voluntarily absconded after being put on his defence.
  2. Whether an accused person who voluntarily absconds from court proceedings after being properly notified waives his constitutional right to be present at trial under Article 28(5) of the Constitution.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Defence case closed.
  • Prosecution ordered to proceed with final submissions notwithstanding the absence of the respondent.
  • Judgment to be delivered thereafter.

Rules and key headnotes

Right to be Present at Trial — Waiver by Voluntary Abscondment
An accused person of full age and sound mind, properly notified of his trial and who voluntarily chooses to absent himself, thereby waives his constitutional right to be present at trial under Article 28(5) of the Constitution. Such a person cannot later claim denial of constitutional rights where the trial proceeds in his absence.
Fair Trial Rights — Article 28(5) — Trial in Absence of Accused
Article 28(5) of the Constitution confers discretion on the court to conduct a criminal trial in the absence of the accused where the accused so conducts himself as to render the continuance of proceedings in his presence impracticable. Voluntary abscondment after being put on defence constitutes such conduct.
Trial in Absence — Preconditions
Before proceeding with a criminal trial in the absence of the accused, the court must be satisfied that: (a) the accused was properly served; (b) he had opportunity to instruct legal counsel; (c) he knew the date of trial and his obligation to attend; and (d) his absence is voluntary.
Fairness in Trial — Interests Beyond the Accused
The right to a fair trial extends beyond the accused to encompass complainants, victims, and the public interest. Where an accused skips bail and prevents the trial from proceeding, he places the victim, the state, and civil parties at a disadvantage. Equality of arms must be considered in the relationship between all parties, not solely between accused and prosecution.
Public Policy — Trial in Absence
It is against public policy to permit an accused person to frustrate court proceedings and paralyse the administration of justice by voluntarily absconding. To discontinue trials where the accused has skipped bail would allow accused persons to take advantage of their own wrong and undermine the rule of law.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (8)

  • Colozza v Italy (1985) 7 EHRR 516
  • Ekbatani v Sweden (1988) 13 EHRR 509
  • R v Abrahams (1985) 21 VLR 343
  • Regina v Johns [1972] 1 WLR 887
  • R v Governor of Brixton Prison, Ex p Caborn-Waterfield [1960] 2 QB 498
  • Poitrimol v France (1994) 18 EHRR 130
  • Falk v United States 15 App DC 446 (1899)
  • Diaz v United States 223 US 442 (1912)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Gurindwa (HCT-00-AC-CM 5 of 2015) [2015] UGHCACD 2 (27 March 2015)
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.