High Court judicial review orders cannot be appealed

Kampala, Uganda | URN | The Court of Appeal has ruled that decisions of the High Court made in the exercise of its revisionary powers, including judicial review orders, are final and cannot be appealed.

The ruling arose from an appeal challenging a decision by Justice Jane Frances Abodo, who had dismissed an application seeking judicial review of proceedings before the Chief Magistrate’s Court in Entebbe. In its decision, a panel of three justices, Oscar John Kihika, John Mike Musisi, and Cornelia Kakooza Sabiiti, held that the Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction to hear such matters.

The case stemmed from a 2017 criminal matter in which ten individuals, including Twala Caroline, Bakaluba Steven, Likambo Vincent, Mutanywaba Gerald (now deceased), Semakula Michael, Kyagaba Charles, Mulindwa George, Ssekyewa Gerald, Luyima Steven, and Katongole Godfrey, were charged with malicious damage to property and criminal trespass. The Chief Magistrate’s Court in Entebbe found that they had a case to answer.

Dissatisfied with both the ruling and the conduct of the trial, the accused petitioned the High Court to revise the magistrate’s findings, citing alleged irregularities and illegalities in the proceedings. However, Justice Abodo dismissed the application, ruling that no injustice had occurred and warning that granting the request would amount to an abuse of court process, particularly since the trial was still ongoing.

The group then sought to challenge the High Court’s decision in the Court of Appeal. At the outset, however, lawyers representing the Director of Public Prosecutions raised a preliminary objection, arguing that such revision orders are not subject to appeal.

In addressing the objection, the Court of Appeal underscored that any court acting without jurisdiction does so unlawfully, rendering its decisions null and void. The justices found that neither the Constitution nor statutory law provides for appeals arising from judicial review decisions made by the High Court in its revisionary capacity.

The justices emphasised that jurisdiction is fundamental and cannot be assumed or implied. They noted that in the absence of an explicit statutory provision granting a right of appeal, the court is barred from entertaining such cases. Consequently, the appeal was struck out.

The court examined Sections 48 and 50 of the Criminal Procedure Code Act, noting that while these provisions empower the High Court to call for and review records from lower courts, and to alter or reverse decisions, they do not establish any right of appeal against such revision orders. Instead, they strictly govern how the High Court exercises its supervisory role.

The judges further pointed out that Section 50(5) allows an aggrieved party to petition the High Court for revision but explicitly bars such petitions where a right of appeal existed and was not exercised. This, they said, reinforces the clear legal distinction between revision and appeal, as well as the finality of revision decisions.

Based on these findings, the Court of Appeal concluded that it had no jurisdiction to hear the matter and struck out the appeal.