[2021] UGHCCRD 61
The court held that the appeal was incompetent because the law does not provide for appeals against interlocutory orders in criminal trials from Magistrates Courts. Section 204 of the Magistrates Courts Act only allows appeals against conviction or acquittal, which are final orders. The ruling allowing amendment of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] UGHCCRD 61
- Parties
- Appellant: Esther Nankindu; Respondent: Uganda
- Court
- HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 66 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Judges
- Elubu, J
- Legal Topics
- Interlocutory Appeals, Amendment of Charge Sheet
- 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
Esther Nankindu
Appellant
Uganda
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether an appeal lies to the High Court against an interlocutory order of a Magistrate in a criminal trial.
- 2 Whether the trial magistrate erred in law and fact by allowing amendment of the charge sheet without leave of court.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the appeal was incompetent because the law does not provide for appeals against interlocutory orders in criminal trials from Magistrates Courts. Section 204 of the Magistrates Courts Act only allows appeals against conviction or acquittal, which are final orders. The ruling allowing amendment of the charge sheet was interlocutory in nature and did not finally determine the case. The right of appeal is strictly statutory, and neither the court nor the parties can create a right of appeal where none exists. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
# **THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA**
# **CRIMINAL APPEAL No 66 OF 2020**
**(Arising from Kajjansi Magistrates Court Case No 58 of 2018)**
**ESTHER NANKINDU :::::::::::::::::::::::: APPELLANTS**
*vs*
**UGANDA ::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT**
## **BEFORE: HON. MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ELUBU**
### **JUDGMENT**
The Appellant, **Nankindu Esther**, filed this appeal against the ruling of **HW Christine Nantege,** Magistrate Grade I Kajjansi Magistrates Court.
The background to this appeal is that when the matter came up for hearing on the 30th of September 2020, the prosecution applied to amend the charge sheet. The appellants counsel raised an objection to the effect that the prosecution had not sought the leave of court or heard from the defence counsel before the amendment was made.
The trial magistrate ruled that there was no provision for leave and dismissed the application. This appeal is against that ruling on the following ground,
That the learned trial Magistrate erred in law and fact when she held that the charge sheet in Case No 58 of 2018 be amended without leave of Court.
#### **Submissions**
This matter came up for hearing during the June 2021 lockdown. As a result the Court sent a notice to the parties to file submissions. The respondent did not respond. The Counsel for the appellant could not be traced either physically or on phone. Nevertheless the matter is technical hence this judgment.
#### **Determination**
…
This appeal arises out of an interlocutory ruling of the trial court. The principle is that there is no right of appeal against an interlocutory ruling in criminal trials.
Appeals in the **Magistrates Courts Act** are provided for in Section 204. It states,
(1) Subject to any other written law and except as provided in this section, an appeal shall lie—
(a) to the High Court, by any person convicted on a trial by a court presided over by a chief magistrate or a magistrate grade I;
(b) to a court presided over by a chief magistrate, by any person convicted on a trial by a magistrate grade II or grade III.
(5) Where an accused person has been acquitted by a magistrate's court, the Director of Public Prosecutions may appeal (or sanction an appeal in such manner as may be prescribed by the Minister by statutory instrument)on the ground that the acquittal is erroneous in law—
(a) to the High Court, where the accused person has been acquitted by a court presided over by a chief magistrate or a magistrate
grade I;
(b) to a court presided over by a chief magistrate, where the accused person has been acquitted by a magistrate grade II or III.
As can be seen appeals lie only against conviction or acquittal. These are final orders at trial. The statute has not provided for appeals against other orders. It is a trite principle of law that appeal is a creature of statute. Neither litigant nor court can confer a right of appeal.
In **Twagira v Uganda [2003] 2 EA 689** it as held Section 216 (now Section 204) of **the Magistrates' Court Act** does not confer a right of appeal in respect of interlocutory orders made by a trial Magistrate such as on a finding of a case to answer. The practice to be followed in such a case is to appeal at the conclusion of the trial and include any complaints about the finding that there was or was not a case to answer.
The 9th Edition of **Black's Law Dictionary** defines interlocutory as,
**'**(Of an order, judgment, appeal, etc.) interim or temporary; not constituting a final resolution of the whole controversy'.
The ruling allowing amendment of the charge sheet is interlocutory in nature as it did not determine the appeal finally.
In the circumstances the appeal has no merit and is dismissed.
**……………………………. Michael Elubu Judge**
**4.8.2021**