[1991] UGHC 50
The trial magistrate erred in acquitting the accused under section 125 of the Magistrates Courts Act because the prosecution case had not been closed, either by calling all witnesses or by offering no evidence. The refusal to allow the withdrawal application was unjustified as no reason was assigned. However,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1991] UGHC 50
- Parties
- Applicant: Uganda; Respondent: Robert Olinga
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Criminal Session 334 of 1989
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Revision of Acquittal Order by High Court
- Outcome
- Application for revision refused; acquittal stands.
- Judges
- GM OKELLO, J
- Legal Topics
- Withdrawal of Charges, Acquittal Without Evidence, Magistrates Courts Act Procedure
- 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
Robert Olinga
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Revision of Acquittal Order by High Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial magistrate erred in acquitting the accused under section 125 of the Magistrates Courts Act without closure of the prosecution case.
- 2 Whether the High Court can revise an order of acquittal in the circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi
The trial magistrate erred in acquitting the accused under section 125 of the Magistrates Courts Act because the prosecution case had not been closed, either by calling all witnesses or by offering no evidence. The refusal to allow the withdrawal application was unjustified as no reason was assigned. However, despite the illegality of the acquittal, the High Court is barred by section 341(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code from revising an order of acquittal. Therefore, the acquittal, though wrong, stands as the law does not permit its revision in these circumstances.
Court Disposition
Application for revision refused; acquittal stands.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
14 paragraphs
\Vve y\ov>. W. SoVnce
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA GULP CRIMINAL CASE NO. MG.jj4/89 REVISION NO.34/91
UGANDA ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::: PROSECUTOR VERSUS
ROBERT OLINGA ::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::: : ACCUSED
BEFORE: The Hon. Mr. Justice G. M, Okello:
The accused was charged with Receiving or Retaining stolen Property contrary to section 289(1) of the Penal Code Act. He pleaded not guilty. At, the commencement of the hearing of the case, the Police prosecutor applied to withdraw the charge against the accused under section 119(a) of the MCA[\\*](#page-0-0) 170 on the ground that the accused and the complainant had reconciled and that the complainant had thereby lost interest in prosecuting the case. The trial Magistrate however refused the application for withdrawal of the case and acquitted the accused under section 125 of the MCA,-70. \ <sup>V</sup>
<span id="page-0-0"></span>The Chief Magistrate of the area forwarded the record of the proceedings in the case to this court for a possible revisional order on the ground that the order of acquittal under section <sup>125</sup> of the MCA[1](#page-0-0)<sup>70</sup> is illegal since no evidence was tendered by the prosecution in support of the charge.
On perusal of the record of the proceedings I am of the view that the refusal by the trial Magistrate to allow the application for
i . . ....
withdrawal was- no-t--justtried'as~ there was no reason assigned for it. Section- <sup>1</sup> 2\$ of the "MCA\* <sup>70</sup> can only come into play after the close of the prosecution case. This closure can come about either wheh the prosecution has. called all the witnesses it wants to call and closed its case or when it closed its case by offering no evidence.
*2*
In the instant case, there was no closure of the prosecution case and the trial Magistrate was clearly wrong to have dismissed the case and acquitted the accused under section 125 of the MCA\*70. The acquittal is clearly wrong and I agree with the Chief Magistrate on this. However in view of the provision of section 3^1(l)(b) of the Criminal Pocedure Code this court cannot revise the order of acquittal.
G. M. Okello JUDGE .
17/5/91