Wakilii

Uganda v Kasibo Joshua (Criminal Application No. 0206 0f 2018)

Court of Appeal · [2020] UGCA 50 · 2020 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for certification that an intended third appeal to the Supreme Court raises questions of law of great public or general importance
Decision
Certification granted; the DPP may lodge a third appeal to the Supreme Court, which can only result in a declaratory judgment

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 granted the DPP's application for certification that the intended third appeal to the Supreme Court raised questions of law of great public or general importance. Applying the principles in the Kenyan Steyn case, the Court found that the customs-law questions concerning the offences of interference with goods subject to customs control, possession of uncustomed goods, and smuggling under the EACCMA transcended the circumstances of the case and bore significantly on the public interest in enforcement of customs law. The Court noted that under section 5(5) of the Judicature Act a third appeal by the DPP can only yield a declaratory judgment and cannot reinstate the quashed conviction. Certification was granted with no order as to costs.

Outcome

Certification granted; the DPP may lodge a third appeal to the Supreme Court, which can only result in a declaratory judgment

Facts

In August 2011 a truck carrying wines, cleared at Malaba and destined for Burundi via transshipment at SPEDAG in Kampala, was diverted to the respondent's home in Bweyogerere after the driver received a call from him. URA officials monitoring the vehicle found it parked at the home with the URA seal on the container broken, though the goods had not been offloaded and a padlock remained on the door. Officials impounded and later sold the goods. The respondent and others were charged with smuggling under the Penal Code Act and offences of possession of uncustomed goods and interference with goods subject to customs control under the EACCMA. He was convicted; the High Court upheld the conviction on first appeal. On second appeal the Court of Appeal quashed the conviction, finding the smuggling charge misconceived (goods moved between partner states), no completed interference (goods not offloaded), and no possession of uncustomed goods. The DPP then sought certification for a third appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the questions of law identified by the applicant for an intended third appeal to the Supreme Court are questions of law of great public or general importance warranting certification under section 5(5) of the Judicature Act.
  2. Whether the offence of interference with goods subject to customs control under section 203(f) of the EACCMA requires the goods to have been unloaded or removed from the conveying vehicle.
  3. Whether goods moving from one East African partner state to another can be smuggled.

Orders

  • Certification granted that the questions raised constitute points of law of great public or general importance warranting a third appeal to the Supreme Court.
  • Application allowed with no order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Procedure — Third Appeals — Certification of Questions of Law of Great Public or General Importance
There is no automatic right to a third criminal appeal to the Supreme Court; under section 5(5) of the Judicature Act an intended appellant must obtain a certificate from the Court of Appeal that the matter raises a question of law of great public or general importance.
Criminal Procedure — Third Appeals — Governing Principles for Certification
To be certified as one of general public importance, the intended appeal must involve a substantial point of law whose determination transcends the circumstances of the particular case and bears significantly on the public interest, and that point must have arisen and been judicially determined in the courts below.
Criminal Procedure — Third Appeals by the DPP — Declaratory Judgment Only
A third appeal to the Supreme Court brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions can only result in a declaratory judgment; the substance of the Court of Appeal's decision cannot be altered and an acquittal cannot have the trial court's conviction reinstated.
Customs Law — Enforcement Offences — Questions Suitable for Certification
Questions concerning the elements of customs offences under the East African Community Customs Management Act — including whether interference with goods requires offloading, and whether goods moving between partner states can be smuggled — are of great public or general importance to the administration and enforcement of customs law.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (1)

  • Hermanus Phillipus Steyn v Giovanni Gnecchi-Ruscone (Supreme Court Criminal Application No. 004 of 2012)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Kasibo Joshua (Criminal Application No. 0206 0f 2018) [2020] UGCA 50 (18 February 2020)
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.