Uganda v Kyagaba Charles (HCT-00-CR-SC 782 of 2023) [2026] UGHC 621 (19 May 2026)

# Uganda v Kyagaba Charles (HCT-00-CR-SC 782 of 2023) [2026] UGHC 621 (19 May 2026) [ Share this document on WhatsApp opens in new tab __](https://api.whatsapp.com/send?text=Uganda+v+Kyagaba+Charles+%28HCT-00-CR-SC+782+of+2023%29+%5B2026%5D+UGHC+621+%2819+May+2026%29+-+https%3A%2F%2Fulii.org%2Fen%2Fakn%2Fug%2Fjudgment%2Fughc%2F2026%2F621%2Feng%402026-05-19) [ Share this document on X opens in new tab __](https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Uganda+v+Kyagaba+Charles+%28HCT-00-CR-SC+782+of+2023%29+%5B2026%5D+UGHC+621+%2819+May+2026%29+-+https%3A%2F%2Fulii.org%2Fen%2Fakn%2Fug%2Fjudgment%2Fughc%2F2026%2F621%2Feng%402026-05-19) [ Share this document on Facebook opens in new tab __](https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=https://ulii.org/en/akn/ug/judgment/ughc/2026/621/eng@2026-05-19) [ Share this document on LinkedIn opens in new tab __](https://www.linkedin.com/sharing/share-offsite/?url=https://ulii.org/en/akn/ug/judgment/ughc/2026/621/eng@2026-05-19) [ Share this document by email __](mailto:?subject=Take%20a%20look%20at%20this%20document%20from%20ULII:%20Uganda%20v%20Kyagaba%20Charles%20\(HCT-00-CR-SC%20782%20of%20%E2%80%A6&body=https://ulii.org/en/akn/ug/judgment/ughc/2026/621/eng@2026-05-19) [ Download RTF (1.0 MB) ](/en/akn/ug/judgment/ughc/2026/621/eng@2026-05-19/source) Toggle dropdown * [Download PDF](/en/akn/ug/judgment/ughc/2026/621/eng@2026-05-19/source.pdf) Report a problem ##### Is there something wrong with this document? Problem category *Incorrect informationMissing informationNo PDF downloadDocument is emptyDocument is not accessible on my deviceOther What's the problem? * Your email address * CancelReport problem __ * Share * [ Download RTF (1.0 MB) ](/en/akn/ug/judgment/ughc/2026/621/eng@2026-05-19/source) * [Download PDF](/en/akn/ug/judgment/ughc/2026/621/eng@2026-05-19/source.pdf) * * * * * Report a problem __ ##### Uganda v Kyagaba Charles (HCT-00-CR-SC 782 of 2023) [2026] UGHC 621 (19 May 2026) Copy citation * __Document detail * __Related documents Citation Uganda v Kyagaba Charles (HCT-00-CR-SC 782 of 2023) [2026] UGHC 621 (19 May 2026) Copy Media Neutral Citation [2026] UGHC 621 Copy Court [High Court of Uganda](/en/judgments/UGHC/) Court registry [Entebbe High Court](/en/judgments/UGHC/UGHC-entebbe-high-court/) Case number HCT-00-CR-SC 782 of 2023 Judges [Karoli Lwanga Ssemogerere, J](/en/judgments/all/?judges=Karoli%20Lwanga%20Ssemogerere%2C%20J) Judgment date 19 May 2026 Language English Summary Whether improper committal venue invalidates High Court trial or must be challenged by criminal revision. ###### Flynote * Criminal Law — Committal proceedings — Venue and jurisdiction under Magistrates Courts Act ss.32, 34, 166, 168 * Criminal Procedure — Challenge to committal — Proper remedy is criminal revision; High Court pre-plea challenges limited to indictment defects (Trial on Indictments Act ss.25, 28, 51) and human-rights violations (Human Rights Enforcement Act s.8(1)) Read full summary __ ##### Ask AI Ask questions and understand this document faster using AI. __Ask AI * * * Skip to document content **THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT ENTEBBE** **HCT-00-CR-SC-0782-2023** **UGANDA===========================PROSECUTION** **VERSUS** **KYAGABA CHARLES =======================ACCUSED** _**RULING ON PRELIMINARY OBJECTION TO COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE HON. JUSTICE KAROLI LWANGA SSEMOGERERE**_ _**Representation**_**:** The learned Director of Public Prosecutions was represented by Mr Joseph Kyomuhendo, Chief State Attorney, assisted by Ms. Janaat Kitimbo, Chief State Attorney Entebbe. The accused person is represented by Mr. Kenneth Paul Kakande of Alaka and Co. Advocates1. _**Brief Facts**_ : At the commencement of proceedings in which the accused is charged with malicious damage to property c/s 312 of the Penal Code Act, learned Counsel for the accused, raised a preliminary objection of law challenging the competence of the proceedings before the High Court. I will reproduce the preliminary point of law to the effect the lower court where the accused was indicted lacked jurisdiction to commit the accused to the High Court. In support of the objection, they objected to court hearing an indictment from Entebbe High Court, the venue of the indictment proceedings, rather than Kajjansi Chief Magistrates Court. In his submissions, learned Counsel for the accused stated the objection was raised in the lower court when the accused was committed in September 2023. Argument: Learned Counsel for the accused argued that jurisdiction of a court is not a matter of implication but must be prescribed by law. He defined jurisdiction as not a term of art but a term of law. It serves the following function, to clothe the trial court with power to do anything in any transaction, confers upon the court the power to decide any matter in controversy. Counsel was asked which section of the law was contravened. This question did not attract a specific response. Counsel for Learned Counsel for the DPP argued in reply, that under the powers vested in the DPP under Section 166 of the Magistrates Courts Act, Cap 19, (the “Magistrates Courts Act”), the DPP chose to commence proceedings in the High Court, the High Court Circuit being Entebbe with administrative jurisdiction over the area where the alleged offences were committed, Zziru, Kajjansi Town Council. In rejoinder, Counsel for the accused argued that committal proceedings are “proceedings” under the Magistrates Courts Act, and the court where proceedings are conducted must possess the powers to do so. He concluded by stating Entebbe Chief Magistrates’ Court did not the possess the powers to conduct committal proceedings. **Decision of Court** : .COURT has heard the objection to proceedings in the High Court, on the basis of committal proceedings in the lower court whose jurisdiction is challenged. According to Counsel for the accused, the accused should have been committed in the Magistrates Court at Kajjansi rather than Entebbe. **Section 168 of the Magistrates Courts Act** , regulates committal proceedings to the High Court. This section must be read together with **Section 166** of the same Act, which grants the magistrate power to remand cases in which it has _no jurisdiction to try the offence_ which he or she is charged (Emphasis mine). The Magistrates Courts have power to transfer an accused person to be sent to the area where an offence was committed. This power to transfer the accused person is provided for in **Section 32 of the Magistrates Courts Act**. **Sections 32** and**34** of the **Magistrates Courts Act** must be read together. **Section 34** stipulates the ordinary place of trial as, subject to the powers to transfer, in **Section 32** , the ordinary place of trial, or inquiry into the offence shall be the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, the offence was committed. Court asked, Counsel for the accused, for the specific provision of the Magistrates Court Act, which was violated, and no response was forthcoming. I make the following findings of law. Committal and trial are different. **Section 168** of the **Magistrates Courts Act** makes this distinction clear, the purpose of committal proceedings, is limited to the accused person understanding the offences with which he has been indicted. The head note to this section notes this different treatment, describing; committal and trial distinctly. Trial of offences in the High Court is regulated by the **Trial on Indictments Act, Cap 25**(the**“Trial on Indictments Act”)**. After committal to the High Court, the only challenges, the accused can make in the course of the trial, is the propriety and framing of an indictment, the contents of which are laid out in **Section 25** of the**Trial on Indictments Act, Cap 25**. An indictment where the accused person has already been convicted or acquitted of the same offence, under **Section 28 of the Trial on Indictments Act**. The procedure for challenging an indictment, is under **Section 51(1) of the Trial on Indictments Act**. The permissible challenges to the indictment are limited the contents of the indictment, specifically where the indictment is defective or not. Court may strike out an indictment, which in the opinion of court, is not disclosed by the evidence set out in the summary of evidence prepared under **Section 168 of the Magistrates Court** s **Act**. In this case, trial proceedings are not in the Magistrates Court, they are in the High Court. The alleged defect should have been addressed in an application for revision. An application for criminal revision had ample time to be addressed, as committal proceedings were conducted in 2023. If Counsel, still has any residual challenges to proceedings in the lower courts, as per my scheduling order, these challenges belong to the Resident Judge Entebbe. The only other challenge permissible in this court, prior to taking plea is a question arising as to the violation of a fundamental human right or freedom under **Section 8(1) of the Human Rights Enforcement Act, Cap 12**. I also hold that while jurisdiction is a creature of statute. Challenges to jurisdiction must always refer to the contravention of the statute conferring jurisdiction. **Findings and conclusion** : 1. The preliminary objection is overruled. 2. Trial to continue with the testimony of PW1. I SO ORDER, DATED AT KAMPALA THIS 19TH MAY 2026. SSEMOGERERE, KAROLI LWANGA JUDGE. Ruling is delivered in open court on May 19th, 2026 in the presence of Ms. Janat Kitimbo Counsel for the Prosecution and Mr. Kenneth Paul Kakande, Counsel for the Respondent. Accused person is in court. A transcribed copy of the ruling is delivered for uploading on ECCMIS on June 1, 2026. 1 An earlier representation of Mr. Musa Kabega, assisted by Ms. Namaganda Christine and Ms. Namulya Rachael withdrew at plea taking after unsuccessfully challenging the orderly conduct of criminal proceedings under the Trial on Indictments Act. Page **2** of **2** #### __Related documents #### More documents like this one ▲ To the top >