[2012] UGCA 60
The General Court Martial has jurisdiction over civilians who are charged with offences involving possession of arms and ammunition that are ordinarily the monopoly of the UPDF, as provided under Section 119(1)(g)-(h) of the UPDF Act. The statute is clear and unambiguous in its application to such cases. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] UGCA 60
- Parties
- Appellant: Namugerwa Hadijah; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions; Respondent: Attorney General
- Court
- Court of Appeal of Uganda
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Ruling
- Outcome
- appeal_dismissed
- Judges
- Mpagi-Bahigeine, DCJ, Nshimye, JA, Arach -Amoko, JA/JCC
- Legal Topics
- Military Jurisdiction Over Civilians, Habeas Corpus, Unlawful Possession of Firearms, Statutory Interpretation
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Namugerwa Hadijah
Appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent
Attorney General
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the General Court Martial has jurisdiction to try civilians for offences involving possession of arms and ammunition ordinarily reserved for the UPDF.
- 2 Whether Section 119(1)(g)-(h) of the UPDF Act is constitutional as applied to civilians.
- 3 Whether the charge sheet against Ssali Muhammed was sufficient to confer jurisdiction to the General Court Martial.
Ratio Decidendi
The General Court Martial has jurisdiction over civilians who are charged with offences involving possession of arms and ammunition that are ordinarily the monopoly of the UPDF, as provided under Section 119(1)(g)-(h) of the UPDF Act. The statute is clear and unambiguous in its application to such cases. The constitutionality of this provision has been upheld by the Constitutional Court, and there is no contrary Supreme Court authority. Therefore, the trial judge was correct in dismissing the writ of habeas corpus and finding that Ssali Muhammed was properly subject to the jurisdiction of the General Court Martial.
Court Disposition
appeal_dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is denied.
- Costs awarded to the respondents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
### THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
### IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF UGANDA AT AMPALA
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10 OF 2012
(Arising from Misc. Cause No. 0152 of 2011 at Kampala)
### <table> NAMUGERWA HADIJAH ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
### **VERSUS**
#### THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS $\mathbf{1}$
ATTORNEY GENERAL :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: $2.$
# $CORAM:$ HON. JUSTICE A. E. N MPAGI BAHIGEINE, DCJ HON. JUSTICE A. S. NSHIMYE, JA HON. JUSTICE M. S. ARACH AMOKO, JA
### JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT
This is an appeal from the Ruling and orders of the High Court in Miscellaneous Cause No. 0152 of 2011, wherein V. T. Zehurikize, J of the High Court, at Kampala, dismissed the writ of Habeous Corpus sought by the appellant on behalf of her brother, Ssali Muhammed. The learned trial judge held that the appellant's claim that the General Court Martial had no jurisdiction over Ssali Muhammed, a civilian failed because $S.119(1)(g)$ -(h) of the UPDF Act granted jurisdiction to that
$\mathbf{1}$
$\mathsf{S}$
$14$
From this decision, the appellant appeals asserting that the court. learned trial judge erred in this finding.
Mr. S. Rwakafuzi represented the appellant while Mr. Gerald Batanda State Attorney with Ms. Faith Turunenya State Attorney appeared for the DPP
The factual background is as follows:
Ssali Muhammed along with two others not before court were arrested and charged with aggravated robbery, committing the offence with a 35 type of gun and ammunition, which is reserved for the UPDF. He was placed under the jurisdiction of the General Court Martial and held at Kigo Government Prison. The appellant, his sister, filed the writ of Habeas Corpus on his behalf. The trial court allowed the writ to be heard, but found that the General Court Martial did indeed have 40 jurisdiction over this case. Unsatisfied, the appellant appealed to this court.
One issue has been framed for this appeal:
Whether the General Court Martial has jurisdiction to try civilians for 45 offences alleged to have been committed with the use of ammunition ordinarily being the monopoly of UPDF. In resolving this issue, the appellant attacks the charge sheet to show that the General Court Martial jurisdiction would be inappropriate. Counsel also argues that the UPDF
$\overline{2}$
Act should not be applied to civilians. In opposition, Counsel for the $50$ respondent argues that appellant's claim about the charge sheet are suited for a trial on the merits rather than a writ of Habeas Corpus. Additionally, the respondent notes that the constitutionality of the relevant statute has been upheld.
## Section 119(1)(g)-(h) of the UPDF Act, provides:
"(1) The following persons shall be subject to military law-
- every person, not otherwise subject to military law, $(g)$ who aids or abets a person subject to military law in the commission of a service offence; and - $(h)$ every person found in unlawful possession of - arms, ammunition or equipment ordinarily being the $(i)$ monopoly of the Defence Forces; or - other classified stores as prescribed." $(ii)$
$6\Phi$
$\overline{5}$
The language of this statute clearly indicates that Ssali Muhammed's charges, including the possession of a firearm and ammunition that is ordinarily the monopoly of UPDF, fall within the jurisdiction of the General Court Martial. Because of the clarity of the Act, the only way then to prevent this exercise of jurisdiction is for the statute to be found to be unconstitutional. The only court considering this issue has been
the Constitutional Court in *Uganda Law Society vs. Attorney General of* the Republic of Uganda, Constitutional Petition No. 18 of 2005. In this case, the court upheld the constitutionality of this provision. When this case was further appealed to the Supreme Court in Constitutional *Appeal No. 1 of 2006*, this issue was not addressed. Therefore, current law clearly puts Ssali Muhammed within the jurisdiction of the General Court Martial. The learned trial judge was correct in his findings. The Appeal is denied with costs to the appellant.
Dated this $\ldots$ day of $\ldots$ $\mathcal{L}$ 2012
Mpagi-Bahigeine DEPUTY CHIEF JUSTICE A. S. Wshimye
JUSTICE OF APPEAL
M. S. Arach Amoko JUSTICE OF APPEAL