Share
Otim v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 25 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 192 (12 April 2024)
- Citation
- [2024] UGHC 192
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Panel
- Adonyo, J
- Case number
- Criminal Miscellaneous Application 25 of 2023
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Panel
- Adonyo, J
- Case number
- Criminal Miscellaneous Application 25 of 2023
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The applicant failed to take any necessary step in prosecuting his application for extension of time to appeal and abandoned the application without providing any reason. This conduct falls squarely within Section 44(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code Act, which empowers the court to dismiss applications for want of prosecution. The absence of any follow-up or justification for the delay led the court to conclude that the application was not being actively prosecuted and therefore warranted dismissal. No order as to costs was made.
Court disposition
application dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- The application is dismissed for none prosecution.
- No order as to costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Otim Francis
Applicant Counsel: Kajeke, Maguru & Co. AdvocatesUganda
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicant is entitled to extension of time to appeal against the decision of the Chief Magistrate's Court.
- 02
Whether the application should be dismissed for want of prosecution.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant sought extension of time within which to appeal and leave to appeal, but did not follow up or provide reasons for the delay after filing the application.
- Respondent
- The respondent, represented by the state, argued that the application had been overtaken by events and prayed for its dismissal due to lack of prosecution.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 44(1)(b) Criminal Procedure Code Act, Cap 116
An appellate court may dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution if the appellant fails to take necessary steps within the allowed time and has not made an application for extension of time.
- 02
Section 44(2) Criminal Procedure Code Act, Cap 116
The court may make such other order as it thinks fit upon dismissal for want of prosecution.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The applicant failed to take any necessary step in prosecuting his application for extension of time to appeal and abandoned the application without providing any reason. This conduct falls squarely within Section 44(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code Act, which empowers the court to dismiss applications for want of prosecution. The absence of any follow-up or justification for the delay led the court to conclude that the application was not being actively prosecuted and therefore warranted dismissal. No order as to costs was made.
Court disposition
application dismissed for want of prosecution
- The application is dismissed for none prosecution.
- No order as to costs.
Source and reliance status
High Court of Uganda
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
High Court of Uganda
Judgment
The Republic of Uganda
In the High Court of Uganda Holden at Soroti
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 25 of 2023
(Arising Katakwi Chief Magistrate's Court Criminal Case No. 148 of 2023)
<pre>.................................... Otim Francis ::::::::::::::::::: 10
Versus
Uganda :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Before: Hon Justice Dr Henry Peter Adonyo
Ruling
This application was brought for extension of time within which to appeal and additionally for leave to be granted to appeal. It was filed on 8<sup>th</sup> June 2023 through M/s Kajeke, Maguru & Co. Advocates.
The application was set for hearing on 16<sup>th</sup> August 2023 at 9 a.m., although there is no record of what transpired on that day, I note that the Deputy Registrar of 20 this court in an internal memorandum addressed to me wrote thus;
> "The applicant has not followed up on their application of leave to file an appeal out of time. The state prayed that the same had been overtaken by events and for dismissal."
It would appear that the applicant and or counsel after the filing this application on 8<sup>th</sup> June 2023 did not make any follow up of it and clearly gave no reason for
doing so and so that could be the reason why the respondent prayed for its $\mathsf{S}$ dismissal on the basis that it is already overtaken by events, though there is not disclosed what events.
However, I have perused the file and find that it is true that the applicant has clearly failed to follow up on his application in line with the provisions of Section
44 of the Criminal Procedure Code Act, Cap 116 which provides for applications 10 of this nature thus;
Section 44. Dismissal of appeal for want of prosecution:
(1) The appellate court may dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution—
(a) if the appellant, at any time before the appeal is determined, escapes from custody or fails to appear after he or she has been released on bail; or 15
(b) if the appellant fails to take any necessary step in prosecuting his or her appeal within the time allowed and has not made an application for extension of time.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), the appellate court may consider and determine an appeal in the absence of the appellant and may make such other order as it thinks fit.
(3) Where on the dismissal of an appeal under section 42 or this section any sentence of imprisonment or of a fine remains to be served or paid, the appellate court may issue a warrant of arrest or make such other order as it deems necessary to enforce the execution of the sentence.
This application falls within the ambit of Section 44(1) (b) above as the appellant 25 has failed to take any necessary step in prosecuting his appeal within the time allowed and has abandoned his application for extension of time without any reason being given.
Accordingly, the application is dismissed for none prosecution with no order as to costs.
$\hbox{I so order.}$
. . . . . . . . . .
Hon. Justice Dr Henry Peter Adonyo
Judge
12<sup>th</sup> April 2024
$10$
$\mathsf{S}$
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.