[2023] UGHCACD 11
The court held that since the respondent was charged and convicted only under the East African Community Customs Management Act 2004, the plea agreement and resultant court order pertained solely to offences under that Act. The applicant's attempt to revise the order on grounds of contravention of the Tobacco...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] UGHCACD 11
- Parties
- Applicant: Uganda; Respondent: Kennedy Ahimbisibwe
- Court
- HC: Anti corruption Division (Uganda)
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Revision Cause 1 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- Tibulya, J
- Legal Topics
- Plea Bargain, Forfeiture of Goods, Due Process Rights, Presumption of Innocence
- 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
Uganda
Applicant
Kennedy Ahimbisibwe
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the lower court's order releasing uncustomed goods upon completion of sentence and payment of taxes should be revised to an order of forfeiture under the East African Community Customs Management Act 2004.
- 2 Whether the respondent's constitutional right to presumption of innocence would be offended by forfeiture of goods when not charged under the Tobacco Control Act, 2015.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that since the respondent was charged and convicted only under the East African Community Customs Management Act 2004, the plea agreement and resultant court order pertained solely to offences under that Act. The applicant's attempt to revise the order on grounds of contravention of the Tobacco Control Act, 2015 is legally unsustainable, as the respondent was neither charged nor convicted under that law. Granting the application would violate the respondent's constitutional right to presumption of innocence and due process, as it would amount to convicting him for offences he was not heard on. The applicant is at liberty to pursue separate legal proceedings if other...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for revision is dismissed for want of merit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
## THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
In the High Court of Uganda at Anti-Corruption Division Kololo Revision cause $1/2023$ (Arising from the Chief Magistrate's Anti-Corruption Court at Kololo) (Criminal Application No 119/2022)
<table>
Uganda :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Versus
Kennedy Ahimbisibwe::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
## **Ruling**
Under a plea bargain arrangement, the Respondent pleaded guilty to possession of uncustomed goods (cigarettes) and conveyance of the same, contrary to sections 200 (d) (iii) and 119 (b) (iii) of the East African Community Customs Management Act 2004. The lower court effected the terms of the plea bargain agreement by inter-alia ordering that the goods "be released to the owners upon completion of sentence and payment of the relevant taxes" after the Respondent fulfilled his part of the plea agreement.
The Applicant however refused to comply with the plea terms on the basis that the goods contravene the Tobacco Control Act, 2015, and the Tobacco Control $\frac{1}{2}$ **Regulations 2019.**
The Applicant now seeks to have the lower Order revised and substituted with an order for forfeiture of the goods, under the relevant provisions of the East African Community Customs Management Act 2004, hence this application.
The Respondent argues that since he was not charged, tried and convicted under the Tobacco Control Act, 2015, an order for forfeiture of the goods if granted would offend his Constitutional due process right to presumption of innocence.
## Considerations.
That the Respondent was charged under the East African Community Customs Management Act 2004 and not the Tobacco Control Act is common cause. It should therefore be understood that the plea agreement and resultant court order solely related to offences under the East African Community Customs Management Act 2004.
For the Applicant to seek to have the court order revised on grounds that the importation of the goods offended the Tobacco Control Act, or that the respondent is suspected to have committed an offence under a different law is not legally sustainable.
Were this court to grant the application, the respondent will not have been availed an opportunity to make presentations relating to the Applicant's assertions, or even plead to other offences other than those which were the subject of the plea bargain. This would be tantamount to convicting him unheard.
If the Applicant believes that there are other remedies accruing to them or other prosecutable offences relating to the same goods, since the terms of plea agreement don't seem to rule out the commencement of a separate legal process, subject of course to various legal challenges they are at liberty to pursue that option.
## Conclusion.
/
This application stands dismissed for want of merit.
[4/ f. Hon I/afly Justice Margaret Tibulya. / 17 July 2023.