[2011] UGHC 91

[2011] UGHC 91

The High Court held that its revisionary jurisdiction should not be exercised in respect of interlocutory orders or findings of a trial magistrate that do not finally determine the rights of the parties. The court found that the admission of the charge and caution statement, even if irregular, was an interlocutory...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2011] UGHC 91
Parties
Applicant: Juliet Katusiime; Applicant: David Sebuliba; Applicant: Maj. Godfrey Kyomuhendo; Respondent: Uganda
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Crim. Revision CAse No. 02 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Interlocutory Order
Outcome
application dismissed; file referred back to trial magistrate for continuation of trial
Judges
Mukasa, J
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Confession Statements, Revision Jurisdiction, Interlocutory Orders
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Admissibility of Evidence Confession Statements Revision Jurisdiction Interlocutory Orders

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Juliet Katusiime

Applicant

David Sebuliba

Applicant

Maj. Godfrey Kyomuhendo

Applicant

Uganda

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Interlocutory Order

  1. 1 Whether a confession statement recorded by the investigating officer is admissible in evidence.
  2. 2 Whether the High Court can exercise its revisionary jurisdiction over an interlocutory order of a magistrate's court.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held that its revisionary jurisdiction should not be exercised in respect of interlocutory orders or findings of a trial magistrate that do not finally determine the rights of the parties. The court found that the admission of the charge and caution statement, even if irregular, was an interlocutory decision that could be challenged on appeal after the conclusion of the trial. Entertaining revision applications for every interlocutory order would undermine the constitutional right to a speedy trial and lead to unnecessary delays. The application for revision was therefore not maintainable, and the matter was referred back to the trial magistrate for a speedy and fair trial.

Court Disposition

application dismissed; file referred back to trial magistrate for continuation of trial

Orders

  • Revision is not maintainable.
  • File is referred back to the trial magistrate for a speedy and fair trial of the accused persons/applicants.