The High Court Criminal Division in Kampala has dismissed a criminal revision application filed by John Sebutinde seeking to terminate private prosecution proceedings against him, ruling that the request was premature and legally misplaced because the criminal trial had not yet reached a final stage.
The ruling was delivered by Justice Alex Mackay Ajiji in Criminal Revision No. HCT-00-CR-CV-0001-2026 arising from Criminal Case No. 622 of 2025.
The dispute stemmed from a private prosecution initiated by Ssebidde Arthur Mpiima against Sebutinde and another accused person over allegations linked to failure to comply with a stop order on construction works under the Building Control Act.
Sebutinde had asked the court to halt the proceedings on grounds that the file was improperly transferred between magistrate courts, the charge sheet was defective, the complaint on oath was flawed, and that the private prosecution lacked legal foundation.
He further argued that the magistrates acted illegally by allowing the case to proceed without proper verification of ownership of the property and without sufficient inquiry into whether a prima facie case existed.
However, the High Court rejected the application, first addressing the procedural argument that the matter was improperly filed. The court held that the objection was technical and did not invalidate the application.
On the central issue, Justice Ajiji ruled that the High Court’s revision jurisdiction does not extend to ongoing criminal proceedings before final orders are made.
The judge stated: “Revision is only meant for examination of final orders.”
He further emphasised that interlocutory rulings, including those made before plea-taking, cannot be challenged through revision, adding that “only a final order can be the subject of such proceedings.”
The court found that no trial had begun in the proper sense because the accused persons had not taken plea, and therefore no conviction, acquittal, or final order existed that could trigger revision powers.
Justice Ajiji also dismissed claims that the transfer of the file between Nakawa Chief Magistrate Court and City Hall Magistrate Court was illegal, finding that the movement of the file was administrative and properly routed through the Chief Registrar.
The court noted that “there has never been a transfer,” explaining instead that the file was forwarded through administrative channels following a ruling by the lower court.
On the issue of the private prosecution process, the judge held that the magistrate had already made a prima facie determination under Section 42 of the Magistrates Courts Act, and that such findings could not be overturned at the revision stage.
Referring to the magistrate’s decision, the ruling cited that the lower court had stated: “I agree with the complaint on oath as it discloses prima facie a commission of an offence.”
The High Court further held that objections relating to defects in the charge sheet, the stop order, or the evidential basis of the prosecution were matters for trial rather than revision.
Justice Ajiji stressed that such issues must be tested in a full hearing after plea-taking, stating in essence that they could not be determined “through extrinsic applications” before trial.
The court also criticised the strategy of seeking revision before plea, suggesting it risked undermining the criminal process by delaying trials through repeated interlocutory challenges.
In conclusion, the court dismissed the application in its entirety, upheld the magistrates’ decisions, and directed that the criminal case be fast-tracked to conclusion.