[2018] UGCC 1

[2018] UGCC 1

The Constitutional Court held that the DPP acted within his constitutional and statutory powers in withdrawing and reinstating charges against the petitioners, and that such actions do not amount to persecution or violation of constitutional rights. The discharge of accused persons upon nolle prosequi is not an acquittal and does not bar subsequent proceedings on the same facts; bail lapses upon entry of nolle prosequi and must be reapplied for if charges are reinstated. The Court found no evidence of violent re-arrest or violation of personal liberty, and distinguished the present facts from previous cases involving aggravated conduct by security forces. However, the Court condemned the...

Citation
[2018] UGCC 1
Parties
Applicant: Kaitale Julius; Applicant: Kato Angelo Bisobye; Applicant: Namusisi Jane; Respondent: Uganda
Court
Constitutional Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
18 January 2018
Case Number
Constitutional Reference No. 11 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Reference / Final Judgment
Outcome
Petitioners' constitutional reference largely dismissed; only violation found was disrespect of judicial independence by re-arrest within court precincts.
Judges
Musoke, JA, Barishaki, JA
Legal Topics
Powers of Dpp, Nolle Prosequi, Right to Bail, Judicial Independence, Abuse of Process
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Powers of Dpp Nolle Prosequi Right to Bail Judicial Independence Abuse of Process

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kaitale Julius

Applicant

Kato Angelo Bisobye

Applicant

Namusisi Jane

Applicant

Uganda

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Reference / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the re-arrest of petitioners after release by the High Court upon entry of nolle prosequi contravened constitutional rights.
  2. 2 Whether charging petitioners afresh with murder after discontinuation of similar charges amounts to persecution and violates the Constitution.
  3. 3 Whether actions of security operatives and the State towards the Court, Judiciary, and petitioners contravened constitutional provisions.

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court held that the DPP acted within his constitutional and statutory powers in withdrawing and reinstating charges against the petitioners, and that such actions do not amount to persecution or violation of constitutional rights. The discharge of accused persons upon nolle prosequi is not an acquittal and does not bar subsequent proceedings on the same facts; bail lapses upon entry of nolle prosequi and must be reapplied for if charges are reinstated. The Court found no evidence of violent re-arrest or violation of personal liberty, and distinguished the present facts from previous cases involving aggravated conduct by security forces. However, the Court condemned the...

Court Disposition

Petitioners' constitutional reference largely dismissed; only violation found was disrespect of judicial independence by re-arrest within court precincts.

Orders

  • It is declared that the conduct of the Police in re-arresting the petitioners after their release by the High Court did not contravene Articles 20(1) and (2), 23(1), (3) and (6), 44(c), 126 and 128(1) and (3) of the Constitution.
  • Charging the petitioners afresh with murder after discontinuation did not amount to persecution or contravene constitutional rights.