Share
Rukundo v Uganda (Criminal Revision No. 21 of 2015) [2016] UGHCCRD 93 (5 January 2016)
- Citation
- [2016] UGHCCRD 93
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Murangira, J
- Case number
- Criminal Revision No. 21 of 2015
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Murangira, J
- Case number
- Criminal Revision No. 21 of 2015
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court held that the existence of a valid and subsisting order from the Anti-Corruption Division of the High Court, which specifically restrained the operation of the applicant's bank account, rendered the present application for revision moot. The Magistrate's order freezing the account had already served its purpose, and the subsequent High Court order, which was valid for six months or until further orders, superseded any relief that could be granted in the present application. The court emphasized that court orders must be obeyed unless set aside or varied, and that the proper procedure for challenging an order is to seek its variation or setting aside, not to disregard it. As such, the application was dismissed as overtaken by events.
Court disposition
application dismissed as overtaken by a subsisting High Court order
Orders
- The application for revision is dismissed.
- Right of appeal is explained to the parties.
02
Material facts
Parties
Sasha Rukundo
Applicant Counsel: Matovu JohnUganda
Respondent Counsel: Okello JonathanAmounts and remedies
- Amount Frozen in Applicant's Bank Account: UGX 240,000,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the application for revision is maintainable in light of a subsisting High Court order restraining the operation of the applicant's bank account.
- 02
Whether the Magistrate's order freezing the applicant's bank account was valid and should be set aside.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant, through counsel, argued that the Magistrate's order freezing the bank account was invalid and should be set aside. The applicant maintained that the application for revision was properly before the court and should proceed to hearing, as it specifically challenged the validity of the Magistrate's order.
- Respondent
- The respondent, represented by the Senior State Attorney, raised a preliminary objection, arguing that a restraining order from the Anti-Corruption Division of the High Court, dated 22nd December 2015, was in force and covered the same subject matter. The respondent submitted that the application was overtaken by events and should be abandoned or dismissed.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Amrit Goyal v. Hari Chard Loyal & 3 others, Civil Application No. 109 of 2004 (2008 ULR 32, Court of Appeal of Uganda)
Court orders must be obeyed unless set aside or varied; disregarding court orders undermines judicial authority.
- 02
Muwema & Mugerwa Advocates & Solicitors v. Shell (U) Ltd & 10 others, Civil Appeal No.18 of 2011 (Court of Appeal of Uganda)
A party cannot disregard a court order even if it is believed to be irregular; proper procedure must be followed to set it aside.
- 03
Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd and Another v. The Commissioner General of URA, Miscellaneous Application No.42 of 2010
Where a higher court issues an order covering the same subject matter, applications before lower courts on the same issue may be rendered moot.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court held that the existence of a valid and subsisting order from the Anti-Corruption Division of the High Court, which specifically restrained the operation of the applicant's bank account, rendered the present application for revision moot. The Magistrate's order freezing the account had already served its purpose, and the subsequent High Court order, which was valid for six months or until further orders, superseded any relief that could be granted in the present application. The court emphasized that court orders must be obeyed unless set aside or varied, and that the proper procedure for challenging an order is to seek its variation or setting aside, not to disregard it. As such, the application was dismissed as overtaken by events.
Obiter and limits
- Disregarding court orders, even if believed to be irregular, is a matter of sufficient gravity and undermines the authority of the judicial system.
- The essence of judicial authority lies in the obedience to court orders, which is fundamental to the administration of justice.
Court disposition
application dismissed as overtaken by a subsisting High Court order
- The application for revision is dismissed.
- Right of appeal is explained to the parties.
Source and reliance status
HC: Criminal Division (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.
HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)
Judgment
THE REPUBLICE OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 21 OF 2015
(Arising out of Magistrate’s Court of Kampala at Makindye Miscellaneous Application No. MA. 4907 of 2015)
IN THE MATTER OF KAMYA VALENTINO, ACCUSED, UGANDA POLICE REF. CID HQRS CEF 647/2015
SASHA RUKUNDO ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::APPLICANT
VERSUS
UGANDA ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::RESPONDENT
RULING BY HON. MR. JUSTICE JOSEPH MURANGIRA
The applicant through her lawyers Matovu & Matovu Advocates filed this application on 17th December, 2015 by a petition, under Section 50 (5) of the Criminal Procedure Code Act, Cap. 116, laws of Uganda. This application is supported by an affidavit that was sworn on 17th December, 2015, by the applicant.
This application is seeking for revision of the order passed by a Magistrate in the Magistrate’s Court of Kampala at Makindye under Section 6 of the Evidence (Banker’s Books( Act. The order of the Magistrate freezed A/C No.08012630004 in the names of Sasha Rukundo at the said Bank of Africa, Kabalagala Branch.
The applicant is represented by Mr. Matovu John from Matovu & Matovu Advocates. Whereas, the respondent is represented by Mr. Okello Jonathan, Senior State Attorney, working with the Directorate of Public Prosecutions.
On 4th January,2016, when this application came up for hearing, Counsel for the respondent, Mr. Okello Jonathan raised a Preliminary Objection to the effect that there is a restraining order issued by the Anti-corruption Court, dated 22nd December,2015, restraining the subject matter of this application. He made a prayer that Counsel for the applicant does abandon this application.
In reply, Counsel for the applicant does not agree. He submitted that the applicant does not agree. He submitted that the applicant in this application is challenging the order of the Magistrate’s Court. That the order of the Magistrate’s Court has to be set aside, that because it is invalid. He prayed that this application proceeds on hearing.
The land is settled. An order of any Court must be obeyed as ordered by Court unless set aside or varied. If Court orders were to be ignored with impurity, this would destroy the authority of Judicial Orders, which is the heart of all Judicial Systems. The essence of my aforestated proposition of the law regarding Court orders; is that once a party knows an order irregular, he or she cannot be disregarding an order of the Court is a matter of sufficient gravity, whatever the order may be. See the cases of:-
1. Amrit Goyal –VS- Hari Chard Loyal & 3 others, Civil application No. 109 or 2004 reported in 2008 ULR 32 (Court of Appeal of Uganda); 2. Muwema & Mugerwa Advocates & Solicitors –VS- Shell (U) Ltd & 10 others Civil Appeal No.18 of 2011, delivered on 19th October,2012 by the Court of Appeal of Uganda and; 3. Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd and Another –VS- The Commissioner of General of URA Miscellaneous application No.42 of 2010.
In the instant Preliminary Objection, Counsel for the respondent, Mr. Okello Jonathan in his submissions entirely relied on the Order that was issued by Hon. Lady Justice Margaret Tibulya, Judge of Anti-Corruption Division of the High Court of Uganda, at Kampala, dated 2nd December, 2015. In that order which was submitted to this Court restrains among other many properties A/C No.08012630004 in the names of Sasha Rukundo in the Bank of Africa Oasis, restraining the withdrawal of Shs. 240,000,000/= (Two hundred forty million Shillings). This order has the effect of freezing the said account.
I have perused the order of the Magistrate, which is annexture R.2 to this application and ascertained that on 7th October, 2015 the Bank Account in issue was indeed freezed.
That order of the Magistrate Court served its purpose. From the nature of the Magistrate’s Court, it appears to me that the order issued, which is under dispute is valid.
Consequently, the prosecution (respondent( obtained, yet another order from the High Court among Other things freezing the applicant’s A/C No.08012630004 in the names of Sasha Rukundo, at the said Bank. The order of the High Court is valid for six (6) months from the date of issue or until further orders of the Court.
Wherefore, from my hereinabove analysis in this ruling, I agree with Counsel for the respondent that this application is overtaken by said order issued by the Anti-Corruption Division, of the High Court of Uganda at Kampala. In the premises, this application stands dismissed.
Dated at Kampala this 5th day of January, 2016.
……………………………….
Joseph Murangira,
Judge.
THE REPUBLICE OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 21 OF 2015
(Arising out of Magistrate’s Court of Kampala at Makindye Miscellaneous Application No. MA. 4907 of 2015)
IN THE MATTER OF KAMYA VALENTINO, ACCUSED, UGANDA POLICE REF. CID HQRS CEF 647/2015
SASHA RUKUNDO ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::APPLICANT
VERSUS
UGANDA ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::RESPONDENT
REPRESENTATION
05/1/2016
Mr. Matovu John for the applicant.
The applicant is in Court.
Mr. Okello Jonathan, Senior State Attorney for the respondent.
Mr. Lillian Kagaso, the Clerk is in Court.
Court: Ruling is delivered to the parties.
Right of appeal is explained.
Joseph Murangira,
Judge.
05/1/2016
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.