Uganda v Jumaine s/o Kabunga (Revision CR, CAsE No. 16/95) [1996] UGHC 83 (1 July 1996)

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA ..

REVISION CR, CA3E NO, 16/95

(arising OUT of cr. case no, mka 5/95)

UGANDA:.: ¹1: t: n 11:::: utu¹ u 1: t::: ¹ hi 11111: iPROSECUTOR

VERSUS

JUMAINE s/O KABUNGAs:: nh nm:n ^h n ^jr; u u: n:: : lACCUSEB # ' \ .. . . • \*

BEFORE: THE HQNOURABIE MR. JUSTICE I, MUKANZA,

REVISIONAL ORDER/CONFIRMATiaN . \* \* ' • ^> / ' ' \*.\* ¹ vi. . • - ?

The accused Jumaine S/O Kabunga was charged with the offence of theft contrary, to section ²⁵² of the penal code. The Particular being that on the 4th day of March ¹⁹⁹² at Hamurwa, Rubanda, Kabale listriot -stole. 330 timber valued at- shillings 737»5Oo/«= the property of Bakasigaki

The prosecution called the evidence of the complainant PW1 after which the case was adjourned for .further.hearing. Ch two subsequent. occassions the case was called for hearing the accused was in attendance but PW1 the coEiplainant was absent. .. The trial magistrate purported to dismiss the charge under section 117 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1970\*

Section ¹¹⁷ deals with non appearance of the complainant. It envisages a situation whereby the accused appears to the obedience of summons served upon him, at the time and place appointed in the summons for the hearing of the case and if. the complainant/prosecutor being \* . ' \*\* • aware of the time and place appointed and doe& not show up then and only then the case could be dismissed mder S.117 of the MCA 1970 and the accused would then be discharged.

In the instant case the complainant had already testified and if no more evidence was forth coming the trial magistrate would have treated the prosecution as having closed its case and would have made use-, of the provisions of secticn 125 of the magistrates courts Act ¹⁹⁷⁰ and find out whether the accused had a case to answer or not. If the accused had a case to answer could have been put on his defence see 5. 126 MCA 1970 and would thereby have proceeded to write his judgment. Ehereas if the accused had no case to answer the trial magistrate would have dismissed the charge and have the accused

acquitted forthwith under section 125 of the MCA 1970.

Whem the DPP (The Director of Public Prosecutions) was contacted whether he would like to be heard in the event of a possible revision order he had this to say -

$2^{\cdots} \cdot \cdots$

"The state does not wish to be heard in the event of a revision order being made. The file is hereby returned." The latter is reference NO. DPPO4/9 dated 2nd November 1995. From what has transpired above the order dismissing the charge under S. 117 of the MCA 1970 is hereby set aside as per the powers conferred upon this court under section 167(1)MCA 1970. The trial magistrate must proceed to write his ruling, summon the accused and deliver the same in open court. Then depending on the result of his ruling he

would proceed either under section 125 of the MCA 1970 or under section 126 of the same Act and dispose of this case as explained above. This file is therefore remitted back to the trial magistrate's with instructions that he complies with this order.

$\mathcal{L} = \{x_1, x_2, \cdots, x_n\}$ $\mathcal{A} = \mathcal{A} \mathcal{A} \mathcal{A} \mathcal{A} \mathcal{A} \mathcal{A} \mathcal{A} \mathcal{A} \mathcal{A} \mathcal{A} \mathcal{A} \mathcal{A} \mathcal{A} \mathcal{A} \mathcal{A} \mathcal{A} \mathcal{A}$ L MUKANZA

$\mathcal{L} = \mathcal{L}$

$\mathcal{F}_1 = \mathcal{F}_1 \cup \mathcal{A} \cup \mathcal{F}_2 \cup \mathcal{F}_3$

$\label{eq:1} \text{where } \mathbf{F} = \mathbf{F} \times \mathbf{A}^T = \text{rank}(\mathbf{F} \mathbf{F}) \times \mathbf{I} \times \mathbf{A}^T = \mathbf{F} \times \mathbf{A}^T = \mathbf{F} \times \mathbf{A}^T = \mathbf{F} \times \mathbf{A}^T = \mathbf{F} \times \mathbf{A}^T = \mathbf{F} \times \mathbf{A}^T = \mathbf{F} \times \mathbf{A}^T = \mathbf{F} \times \mathbf{A}^T = \mathbf{F} \times \mathbf{A}^T = \mathbf{F} \times \mathbf{$ $1.7.1996.$ $\lim_{\varepsilon \to 0} \mathcal{L}_{\varepsilon}(\varepsilon) = \lim_{\varepsilon \to 0} \mathcal{L}_{\varepsilon}(\varepsilon) = \lim_{\varepsilon \to 0} \mathcal{L}_{\varepsilon}(\varepsilon) = \lim_{\varepsilon \to 0} \mathcal{L}_{\varepsilon}(\varepsilon) = \mathcal{L}_{\varepsilon}(\varepsilon)$ and the particular of the secondaries the parameters

a suitable that a find that the same I this property that is played in a set of the $\mathcal{L}(x)$ and the form $\mathcal{L}(x)$ . The remainder $\mathcal{L}(x)$ with $\mathcal{L}(x)$ the adjusted to the first that the the sense of the sense of the sense of $\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{L}) = \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{L}) \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{L}) \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{L}) \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{L}) \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{L})$ $\label{eq:1} \mathcal{M}(\mathcal{M}) = \mathcal{M}(\mathcal{M}) \qquad \mathcal{M}(\mathcal{M}) = \mathcal{M}(\mathcal{M}) \qquad \mathcal{M}(\mathcal{M}) = \mathcal{M}(\mathcal{M}) \qquad \mathcal{M}(\mathcal{M}) = \mathcal{M}(\mathcal{M}) \qquad \mathcal{M}(\mathcal{M}) \qquad \mathcal{M}(\mathcal{M}) = \mathcal{M}(\mathcal{M}) \qquad \mathcal{M}(\mathcal{M}) \qquad \mathcal{M}(\mathcal{M}) \qquad \mathcal{M}(\mathcal{M}) \qquad \mathcal{M}(\mathcal{M}) \$ CONTRACT the property of the property of the property of the property of the property of the property of the property of $\mathbf{A} \mathbf{A} \mathbf{A} = \mathbf{A} \mathbf{A} \mathbf{A} \mathbf{A} \mathbf{A} \mathbf{A} \mathbf{A} \mathbf{A} \mathbf{A}$ MAR PERSONAL REPORTS OF THE OWNER. ATT CONTINUES TO A VALUE OF TAXABLE

$\mathbf{r}$ , $\mathbf{r}$ , $\mathbf{r}$ , $\mathbf{r}$ , $\mathbf{r}$ , $\mathbf{r}$ , $\mathbf{r}$ , $\mathbf{r}$ , $\mathbf{r}$ , $\mathbf{r}$ , $\mathbf{r}$ , $\mathbf{r}$ , $\mathbf{r}$ , $\mathbf{r}$ , $\mathbf{r}$ , $\mathbf{r}$ , $\mathbf{r}$ , $\mathbf{r}$ , $\mathbf{r}$ , $\mathbf{r}$ , $\mathbf{r}$ , $\mathbf{r}$ ,

$\rightarrow \quad \ldots \quad$