[2012] UGHC 96

[2012] UGHC 96

The Applicants, all civilians, were detained for prolonged periods without trial after being charged before the General Court Martial, which lacks jurisdiction over civilians not jointly charged with members of the armed forces or with military-exclusive equipment. Their continued detention without trial constitutes a gross violation of their constitutional rights to liberty and a fair hearing, as protected under Articles 23(4), 28(1), and 44 of the Constitution. The High Court, empowered by Section 34 of the Judicature Act, has jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus in such circumstances, regardless of the involvement of the Court Martial. The Constitutional Court has already...

Citation
[2012] UGHC 96
Parties
Applicant: Muhindo Herbert; Applicant: Mbusa Bitsumbaro Muhame; Applicant: Asiimwe Isaac; Applicant: Hosea Kambole; Applicant: Monday Nuru alias Akyali; Applicant: Kwezi Paul alias Adyeri; Respondent: Attorney General
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
29 May 2012
Case Number
HCT
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum
Outcome
application granted
Judges
Bashaija, J
Legal Topics
Habeas Corpus, Unlawful Detention, Court Martial Jurisdiction, Fair Hearing Rights
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Habeas Corpus Unlawful Detention Court Martial Jurisdiction Fair Hearing Rights

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Muhindo Herbert

Applicant

Mbusa Bitsumbaro Muhame

Applicant

Asiimwe Isaac

Applicant

Hosea Kambole

Applicant

Monday Nuru alias Akyali

Applicant

Kwezi Paul alias Adyeri

Applicant

Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Applicants are in unlawful detention.
  2. 2 Whether the High Court is empowered to intervene in the detention ordered by the General Court Martial.
  3. 3 Whether the orders sought can be obtained in this application.

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicants, all civilians, were detained for prolonged periods without trial after being charged before the General Court Martial, which lacks jurisdiction over civilians not jointly charged with members of the armed forces or with military-exclusive equipment. Their continued detention without trial constitutes a gross violation of their constitutional rights to liberty and a fair hearing, as protected under Articles 23(4), 28(1), and 44 of the Constitution. The High Court, empowered by Section 34 of the Judicature Act, has jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus in such circumstances, regardless of the involvement of the Court Martial. The Constitutional Court has already...

Court Disposition

application granted

Orders

  • Immediate release of all Applicants from detention.
  • Applicants awarded costs of the application.