Wakilii

Wakamala Alex & Mwandha Jamilu v Uganda (Criminal Revision 13 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCRD 26 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal revision application from Chief Magistrate's Court order restricting media coverage during trial
Decision
Revision application dismissed; trial magistrate's media restriction order upheld

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 dismissed the revision application challenging a trial magistrate's order restricting media audio and video recording during criminal proceedings. The Court held that the trial magistrate acted in good faith and within his case management powers when issuing the order to prevent breach of the sub judice rule. The ten-month delay in filing the application was inexcusable, and allowing it would prejudice witnesses who testified under the existing order. Trial courts are best positioned to assess their environment and issue appropriate orders for effective case management.

Outcome

Revision application dismissed; trial magistrate's media restriction order upheld

Facts

The applicants were among nine accused persons charged with conspiracy to defeat justice, conspiracy to commit a felony, criminal trespass, and giving false information to police in Chief Magistrate's Court Criminal Case No. CO-605-2023. During the prosecution case, media houses freely recorded and published court proceedings. On 5 April 2024, after several prosecution witnesses had testified, the state applied to restrict media audio and video recording, citing breach of the sub judice rule through social media publications and TikTok videos by pastors discussing the case merits. The trial magistrate granted the application, banning live audio and video recording but allowing verified media personnel to attend and write reports. The prosecution closed its case on 17 October 2024, and the defence case commenced. On 14 March 2025, ten months after the order, the applicants filed this revision application seeking to set aside the media restriction order, arguing it violated their constitutional rights to a fair hearing and media freedom.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial magistrate's order of 5 April 2024 banning audio and video recording of proceedings by media houses should be revised and set aside.
  2. Whether the application for revision was filed within a reasonable time.
  3. Whether the trial magistrate's order occasioned a miscarriage of justice warranting revisional intervention.
  4. Whether the order violated the applicants' constitutional rights under Articles 28 and 126(2) of the Constitution.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Hearing of the defence case to proceed in strict compliance with the trial magistrate's orders passed on 5 April 2024.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Procedure — Revisional Jurisdiction — Timing of Applications
While there is no strict time limit for filing criminal revision applications under Section 50(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code Act, inordinate delay in seeking revision is a relevant factor in the exercise of the court's discretion, particularly where the impugned order has been in operation for a substantial period and evidence has been taken under it.
Criminal Procedure — Revisional Jurisdiction — Grounds for Intervention
The High Court's revisional jurisdiction under Section 50(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code Act is exercisable where an error material to the merits or involving a miscarriage of justice has occurred. The court will not interfere with orders made by trial magistrates in good faith for the proper management of proceedings before them.
Criminal Procedure — Case Management — Media Coverage Restrictions
A trial magistrate has inherent power to regulate media coverage of proceedings, including restricting audio and video recording, where necessary to prevent breach of the sub judice rule and ensure orderly management of the trial. Such orders, when made in good faith after hearing all parties, will not be disturbed on revision.
Administrative Law — Judicial Deference — Trial Court Case Management
The High Court should desist from interfering with orders issued by lower courts where such orders are made in good faith, as presiding judicial officers are in the best position to assess the court environment and should be allowed to issue appropriate orders to ensure effective management of cases before them.

Legislation cited (17)

Cases cited (1)

  • Tinyefunza v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 1 of 1996)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Wakamala Alex & Mwandha Jamilu v Uganda (Criminal Revision 13 of 2025) [2025] UGHCCRD 26 (15 July 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.