Constitutional Interpretation

Twagira Vs Attorney General (CONSTITUTIONAL PETITION NO. 7 OF 2005 ) [2006] UGCC 5 (31 October 2006);


Search Summary: 

The petitioner was arrested, charged and
prosecuted in the Chief Magistrate's Court of
embezzlement and theft by agent contrary to
Sections 268 (b) and 271 of the Penal Code
Act. The Chief Magistrate found that a prima
facie case had been made out. His accounts
were subsequently frozen. He did not make any
defence and instead filed this petition.

Headnote and Holding: 

The court held that To determine whether a fair
hearing has been conducted or that there was a
violation of the right to a fair hearing, the
proceedings must first be completed, that is to

say; the prosecution and defense must conclude
their cases and the Court makes a decision on
the matter.
The matters complained of were neither
determined nor sentences therefore prescribed
by law. A finding by the trial Court of a case to
answer can only be challenged in the appellate
Court. It does not require constitutional
interpretation. In this case, if the petitioner was
aggrieved by the order, he was free to apply for
its review. There was nothing unconstitutional
in the Court making that order of restriction
pending the completion of the petitioner's trial.


Subscribe to RSS - Constitutional Interpretation