Challenge to pending extradition proceedings dismissed as premature
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. HCT-00-CR-CV-0014-2026
IN THE MATTER OF REVISION OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND RULING OF THE CHIEF
MAGISTRATE’S COURT AT BUGANDA ROAD IN CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE
NO. KLA-00-CR-MC-0055-2026
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE EXTRADITION ACT, CAP 124
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE MAGISTRATES COURT ACT, CAP 19
[OMISSIS]______________________________APPLICANT
VERSUS
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS ___________________RESPONDENT
BEFORE: HON. JUSTICE SIMON PETER M. KINOBE
RULING
INTRODUCTION
1.By a notice of motion filed on 20th July, 2026, the applicant brought this
application under Articles 2, 20, 21(1), 28, 44 of the 1995 constitution of the
Republic of Uganda as amended, section 3(b) and 10(1) of the Extradition Act
Page 2 of 31
3rd August 2026
Cap 124, section 101(1) of the Magistrates Courts Act Cap 19, sections 5 & 6
of the Commissioner for Oaths (Advocates) Act Cap 6, section 37 of the
Judicature Act Cap 16 for orders that;
a) Further proceedings in Criminal Miscellaneous Cause No. KLA-00-CR-MC-
0098 of 2026 pending before the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Buganda
Road be stayed pending the hearing and determination of this Application.
b) This Honourable Court be pleased to call for and examine the record of
proceedings and order in Criminal Miscellaneous Cause No. KLA-00-CR-
MC-0055 of 2026 to ensure compliance with fair trial principles and
observance of civil rights.
c) This Honourable Court be pleased to revise, reverse, vary and/ or set aside
the ruling delivered by the learned Chief Magistrate on the 10th day of July
2026.
d) That the Honourable Court be pleased to order for the Applicant’s
unconditional release from custody.
e) Costs of this Application be provided for.
2.The grounds of the application as avowed in the affidavit of the applicant,
[OMISSIS];
Page 3 of 31
3rd August 2026
a) On 27th June, 2026, he was arrested pursuant to an arrest warrant issued
by the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Buganda Road following an extradition
request made by the Government of the United States of America and
requested vide letter from the Minister of Justice and Constitutional
Affairs dated 14th April, 2026 and another earlier written by the Solicitor
General dated 27th March 2026.
b) He was subsequently produced before the Chief Magistrate’s Court where
extradition proceedings were commenced against him, and he was
remanded to Murchison Bay Prison, Luzira on 30th June 2026, where he is
still detained.
c) When the matter came up for hearing on 10th July 2026, his lawyers raised
several preliminary objections, namely;
i)
That the Notice of Motion was incurably defective for being
supported by an unsworn/defective affidavit of one Michael D.
Stanton and the hearsay-based affidavit of D/SSP Kule Yona.
ii)
That the procedure used in commencing the proceedings, namely
by Notice of Motion, was irregular in law.
iii)
That the Applicant, being a Diplomat at the time of the alleged
commission of the purported offences, was immune to prosecution.
Page 4 of 31
3rd August 2026
iv)
That the Extradition Act was offended in Section 3(b) by omitting to
commit on the speciality doctrine.
v)
That the matter raised serious constitutional questions requiring a
reference to the Constitutional Court under Article 137 of the
Constitution.
d) The learned Chief Magistrate ruled and gave reasons on 4(e) above but
referred the ruling on the objections in 4(a-d) to be decided in the main
application.
e) That the Director of Public Prosecutions commenced the extradition
proceedings by way of an interlocutory Application through a Notice of
Motion supported by two affidavits.
f) During the proceedings on 10th July 2026, when his lawyers contested the
Application being brought as a new cause, the learned Chief Magistrate
clarified that this was a Miscellaneous Application arising from an earlier
Miscellaneous Cause to which he was not party or involved.
g) That it later turned out that the Miscellaneous Cause No. 0098 of 2026,
which was closed upon issuance of the arrest warrant, was still used for
purposes of the proceedings now under contestation.
Page 5 of 31
3rd August 2026
h) That he was advised by his lawyers, whose information he verily believes
to be true, that upon issuing a warrant of arrest under Miscellaneous
Cause No. 0098 of 2026, the learned Chief Magistrate closed the file and
became functus officio and the subsequent remand was illegal. His lawyers
challenged this procedure, and the illegality vide a letter dated 2nd July
2026, but the same protest was ignored, thereby remanding him without
jurisdiction or by exercise of jurisdiction with material irregularity.
i) He was advised by his Advocates that the Extradition Act, Cap. 124
establishes a special statutory procedure governing extradition
proceedings which was not followed by the Chief Magistrate.
j) When the matter came up for hearing on 10th July 2026 at 9:00 am, his
Advocates raised several preliminary objections challenging the legality,
competency and propriety of the Extradition proceedings before the
Applicant could proceed with the hearing.
k) That the first objection related to the failure of the extradition request to
comply with Section 3(b) of the Extradition Act.
l) It was also contended that neither the extradition request, the Notice of
Motion nor the affidavits filed in support thereof contained the mandatory
assurance that the applicant would not be prosecuted or punished for
offences other than those for which extradition was sought. It was argued
that the omission rendered the proceedings incompetent.
Page 6 of 31
3rd August 2026
m) His Advocates further objected to the procedure adopted by the Director
of Public Prosecutions in commencing the extradition proceedings. They
argued that Section 10(1) of the Extradition Act Cap. 124 requires the
Magistrate to hear the extradition proceedings in substantially the same
manner as criminal proceedings or as may be, as he or she has in the
exercise of criminal jurisdiction.
n) It was further argued that the Act does not authorise the commencement
of extradition proceedings through an interlocutory application by way of
a Notice of Motion supported solely by affidavit evidence.
o) His Advocates also raised substantial constitutional questions concerning
the legal basis upon which the extradition request had been brought to
the extent that the law under which the American government seeks to
enforce against him in his country offends Article 2, 20 and 21 of the
Constitution by favouring Americans against Non-Americans, which is
equally evident in the Note Verbale.
p) That the entirety of the proceedings has been marred by irregularities,
illegalities, mala fides and falsehoods perpetrated by the Directorate of
Public Prosecutions and the Ministry of Justice behind his back without
involving him and denying him an opportunity to present his case before
Ugandan authorities which have a duty to protect his liberty and other civil
rights.
Page 7 of 31
3rd August 2026
q) That it was argued that whereas the Director of Public Prosecutions relied
upon Article 6 of the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, 1988, the United States of
America had expressly declared that it would not rely upon the Convention
as a legal basis for extradition of a US citizen in the absence of a bilateral
extradition treaty with the requesting Country.
r) That Uganda currently has an illegal and irregular extradition arrangement
with the United States of America which offends the Constitution and
other laws of Uganda.
s) That it was therefore contended that reliance upon the Convention in light
of the reservation by the US government raised substantial constitutional
questions requiring interpretation and reference to the Constitutional
Court before the extradition proceedings could continue. It was also the
duty of the Court to examine the legality of the said reservation, against
the legal dictates of Uganda in so far as it provides for different legal
regimes based on nationality and race.
t) His Advocates also challenged the competence of the Affidavits sworn by
Michael D Stanton and D/SSP Kule Yona. They pointed out that although
the deponent had previously filed a Statutory Declaration to verify and
clarify his name, which was properly notarised in the United States, the
affidavit in support was not similarly authenticated.
Page 8 of 31
3rd August 2026
u) His Advocates further objected to the involvement of the Minister of
Justice and Constitutional Affairs in initiating the extradition proceedings,
as opposed to the Attorney General, who is provided for under the law,
which in their opinion was illegal and irregular under the legal framework;
mutual legal assistance is a function vested in the Attorney General and
not the Minister. That the Minister’s actions, including the request made
to the Chief Magistrate to issue my warrant of arrest, were undertaken
without lawful process.
v) After hearing both parties, the Chief Magistrate overruled all the above
preliminary objections and directed that the extradition proceedings
proceed to hearing.
w) He was advised by his Advocates that the Chief Magistrate thereby
exercised jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity, thereby
offending fair trial laws and principles warranting the intervention of this
Honourable Court.
x) Unless this Honourable Court intervenes, he stands to be subjected to
extradition proceedings which were commenced contrary to the
mandatory provisions of the law, a process that equally offends the right
to a fair trial, by stripping him of the protection offered by the Constitution
of the Republic of Uganda.
Page 9 of 31
3rd August 2026
y) That it is not alleged anywhere that he ever committed any offence in the
United States of America to confer jurisdiction onto American Courts over
a non-American.
z) That the hearing of the extradition proceedings has been fixed for hearing
on the 15th July 2026 at 9:00 AM and unless these proceedings are stayed,
the subordinate court is likely to proceed with the hearing before this
Application can be determined, thereby rendering this Application
nugatory.
aa) That this Honourable Court possesses the supervisory and revisionary
jurisdiction necessary to examine the legality, correctness and propriety of
the impugned proceedings to ensure that rights are not violated in the
lower Court proceedings.
3.The Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions, Vicky Nabisenke, deponed an
affidavit in reply wherein she denied all the applicant’s allegations and stated
that;
a)That the Notice of Motion does not invoke any statutory provision
conferring civil revisionary jurisdiction over the impugned ruling. The
constitutional and statutory provisions cited by the Applicant do not,
without more, create a civil revision procedure against an order made in
extradition proceedings.
Page 10 of 31
3rd August 2026
b)That civil revision under section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act is confined to
a case decided under that Act by a Magistrate’s Court, whereas the
impugned ruling was made under the Extradition Act in proceedings in
which section 10(1) directs the Magistrate to exercise criminal jurisdiction,
as nearly as may be.
c)That the designation of the filing as a civil miscellaneous application and its
placement before the Civil Division cannot convert the underlying criminal
statutory proceedings into civil proceedings or enlarge the scope of the
civil revision jurisdiction.
d)That the ruling delivered on 10th July 2026 was interlocutory. It did not
finally commit the Applicant for surrender, determine his guilt, order his
extradition, or foreclose the trial Magistrate from evaluating the
admissibility, authentication, sufficiency and weight of the evidence upon
the full hearing.
e)The Trial Magistrate determined the distinct request for a constitutional
reference and expressly reserved for final determination those objections
which she found to involve mixed questions of law and fact. She did not
decline or refuse to determine the reserved objections; she directed that
they be resolved upon the complete evidential record before any final
order of committal, discharge or surrender.
Page 11 of 31
3rd August 2026
f)The present Application seeks a piecemeal determination by the High Court
of matters which form part of the merits of the pending extradition cause
before the State has completed presentation of its evidence and before
the Magistrate has made a final determination under the Extradition Act.
g)A preliminary objection properly so called raises a pure point of law founded
upon admitted or undisputed facts and is capable of determination
without receiving or testing evidence. The objections concerning
execution and authentication of affidavits, diplomatic status or immunity,
speciality, the documentary chain through which the request was
transmitted, and the legal effect and sufficiency of the supporting
materials necessarily involve disputed facts and evidence and were
therefore not required to be finally determined in limine.
h)That Section 12 of the Extradition Act only permits review of an extradition
through the right to apply for an order for an order of habeas corpus, and
only after the magistrate has committed the individual to prison to await
surrender. Revision should not be converted into an interlocutory appeal
or a mechanism for the High Court to supervise each case-management
step taken by a Magistrate where the disputed questions remain open, the
parties’ evidential rights are preserved, and no final committal has been
made.
i)That the supervisory jurisdiction of this Honourable Court in revision is
principally concerned with correcting errors of law, jurisdictional errors,
Page 12 of 31
3rd August 2026
illegality, material procedural irregularity, or impropriety apparent from
the proceedings or order under review, and is not intended to operate as
an interlocutory appeal or to invite a premature re-evaluation of contested
facts, evidential sufficiency, admissibility, authentication or weight before
the trial Court has completed the hearing and made the requisite factual
and legal determinations.
j)That extradition proceedings are not a trial of the Applicant for the offences
alleged by the Requesting State, and neither this Honourable Court nor the
Magistrate conducting the extradition hearing is required to determine
the Applicant’s guilt or innocence.
k)That the purpose of the extradition hearing is to determine whether the
statutory threshold for committal and surrender has been met, including
the identity of the person sought, the existence and legal basis of the
request, the extraditable nature of the alleged offences, the
authentication and sufficiency of the supporting material, and whether
any statutory bar to surrender is established.
l)The State is not required at the extradition stage to lead the full body of
evidence intended for the eventual criminal trial in the United States, as
doing so would improperly convert the extradition proceedings into the
foreign criminal trial itself.
Page 13 of 31
3rd August 2026
m)That the Applicant has at all material times been represented by several
Advocates, has received the extradition materials relied upon by the State,
has been permitted to raise preliminary objections and has had, and
continues to have, a full opportunity to challenge the evidence and make
submissions before the trial Magistrate. In particular, following delivery of
the impugned ruling, the Applicant, through his Counsel, applied for leave
to cross-examine the deponents whose affidavits support the extradition
application, and the Trial Magistrate granted that application.
n)That the extradition request was received through the appropriate
governmental and diplomatic channels and was processed under the
Extradition Act before the Applicant was arrested and produced before the
Chief Magistrate.
o)That section 8 of the Extradition Act expressly assigns the Minister a role
upon receipt of a requisition for surrender, including signifying the
requisition in writing to a Magistrate and requiring the issue of a warrant;
the allegation that the Minister had no lawful role is therefore contrary to
the statutory scheme.
p)The warrant of arrest was issued by the Chief Magistrate upon the official
request and supporting material, and the Applicant was subsequently
produced before Court and remanded by judicial order.
Page 14 of 31
3rd August 2026
q)That following the Applicant’s production before Court, the ODPP assumed
conduct of the State’s case in accordance with Article 120 of the
Constitution and the applicable extradition framework.
r)That mutual legal assistance and extradition are distinct forms of
international cooperation, and provisions assigning functions to the
Attorney General in relation to evidence-gathering or other international
assistance do not repeal or displace the express role of the Minister under
the Extradition Act.
s)That the Extradition Act does not prescribe a charge sheet or any single
originating form by which the evidential materials must be placed before
the Magistrate, and the words “as nearly as may be” in section 10(1) do
not require an extradition committal proceeding to be identical in form to
an ordinary domestic criminal trial.
t)That the Act expressly contemplates the use of duly authenticated foreign
warrants, depositions, statements, affirmations, certificates and judicial
documents, and does not require every fact supporting an extradition
request to be proved solely by oral evidence in Uganda.
u)That the Notice of Motion filed before the Magistrate was the procedural
vehicle by which the State placed the request and supporting materials
before Court; the jurisdiction of the Magistrate arose from the Extradition
Page 15 of 31
3rd August 2026
Act, the requisition, the ministerial signification and the production of the
fugitive criminal, and not from the title given to the filing.
v)The State’s case is founded on the complete extradition package, including
the diplomatic request, the ministerial communication, the foreign
indictment and warrant, authenticated supporting material, identity
evidence and such supplementary evidence as the Magistrate may lawfully
admit, and not solely on one affidavit as alleged.
w)The objections to the jurat, authentication and weight of the affidavit
attributed to Michael D. Stanton are evidential matters for determination
by the trial Magistrate upon the full record and do not extinguish the
Magistrate’s statutory jurisdiction over the extradition cause. Those
objections require examination of the circumstances of execution, the
capacity of the person before whom the document was executed, the
source of the deponent’s knowledge, the status of the document within
the authenticated extradition package, and any further evidence tendered
by the State; they are therefore mixed questions of law and fact rather
than pure jurisdictional objections.
x)The trial Court has power to permit further authentication, supplementary
evidence and testimony where necessary, and the Applicant has been
afforded an opportunity to test the evidence, including by cross-
examination where such is ordered by Court, as was issued in this case.
Page 16 of 31
3rd August 2026
y)For avoidance of doubt, following delivery of the ruling, the Applicant’s
Counsel expressly sought leave to cross-examine the supporting
deponents and the Trial Magistrate granted the request. The grant of leave
demonstrates that the affidavits were not treated as conclusively
admissible, unquestionable or immune from scrutiny, and that the
Applicant retains a full opportunity to test their execution, authentication,
content, source of knowledge, reliability and weight.
z)The special statutory character of extradition supports, rather than defeats,
the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under sections 8 to 11 of the Extradition
Act.
aa)The preliminary objections were fully argued by all parties and considered
by the Trial Magistrate. The Magistrate properly distinguished issues
capable of immediate determination from evidential and substantive
matters to be resolved after hearing the complete case. The reason for
reserving the relevant objections was that their proper resolution
depended upon evidence and factual findings forming part of the
substantive extradition inquiry. The deferral was therefore a reasoned
sequencing decision within the Court’s case-management jurisdiction and
not a failure to exercise jurisdiction.
bb)That the absence of the particular wording demanded by the Applicant in
the originating papers does not establish a breach of the rule of speciality
or deprive the Magistrate of jurisdiction, for the reasons stated above.
Page 17 of 31
3rd August 2026
cc)That section 10(1) does not prohibit the procedural use of a Notice of
Motion or authenticated documentary evidence, and the Applicant’s
interpretation would disregard the express evidential scheme of the
Extradition Act.
dd)That the Applicant misstates the effect of the United States understanding
to the 1988 Convention, which is confined to the extradition by the United
States and is immaterial to the present request to Uganda concerning a
Ugandan citizen.
ee)The challenge to the Michael D. Stanton affidavit concerns admissibility,
authentication and weight, not the existence of the extradition request or
the Magistrate’s jurisdiction; the State is entitled to rely upon the
complete authenticated record and any lawful supplementary evidence, if
necessary and subject to the requisite procedural guardrails.
ff)That the Applicant wrongly conflates mutual legal assistance with
extradition. The Minister’s role is expressly provided by the Extradition Act,
and the request, signification and warrant were processed through the
lawful authorities.
gg)It is admitted only that the Trial Magistrate determined and declined the
request for a constitutional reference and directed that the extradition
hearing proceed. It is denied that she finally overruled or extinguished all
Page 18 of 31
3rd August 2026
the remaining objections; those involving mixed questions of law and fact
were expressly reserved for determination upon the full evidential record,
and it is further denied that the court failed to hear the parties.
hh)She denied that the Trial Magistrate acted illegally or with material
irregularity. The ruling preserved the Applicant’s right to challenge the
State’s evidence while preventing preliminary objections from
prematurely terminating a statutory hearing. A judicial officer does not act
illegally or with material irregularity merely because she reserves a mixed
question of law and fact for decision after the evidence is received. The
Applicant must demonstrate a material error affecting the legality,
propriety or regularity of the proceedings and an actual or real risk of
miscarriage of justice, not mere disagreement with the timing or
sequencing of a ruling. The subsequent grant of his own request to cross-
examine the deponents confirms that no such prejudice has arisen.
ii)She denied that the proceedings were commenced or continued contrary
to any mandatory provision of the Extradition Act. The Applicant has not
identified any prejudice that cannot be addressed by the trial Magistrate
in the final determination. Every reserved objection remains capable of
effective determination before the Trial Magistrate makes any final order,
and the Applicant may renew and support those objections through cross-
examination, evidence and final submissions.
Page 19 of 31
3rd August 2026
jj)That the applicant has not demonstrated that the Trial Magistrate exercised
jurisdiction not vested in her, failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in her,
or committed an illegality or material irregularity causing injustice. In
particular, he has not shown that the Magistrate’s decision to defer mixed
questions of law and fact was outside the range of lawful judicial discretion
or that it occasioned any injustice incapable of correction within the
pending cause.
kk)That the Application instead seeks a premature appellate determination of
evidential and substantive issues before the Magistrate has heard the
State’s case and rendered a final decision under the Extradition Act. Having
invoked the jurisdiction of the same Trial Court after the ruling and
obtained leave to cross-examine the State’s deponents, the Applicant
cannot credibly contend that the Court foreclosed his objections or
subjected him to a process incapable of protecting his fair-hearing rights.
ll)That the continued stay and fragmentation of the proceedings prejudice the
public interest in the expeditious administration of justice, Uganda’s
international cooperation obligations and the orderly presentation of the
Requesting State’s evidence, while the Applicant’s procedural and fair-
hearing rights remain fully protected before the Magistrate.
Determination of the present Revision Application before the cross-
examination and completion of the evidential hearing would fragment the
statutory process, invite successive collateral challenges to interlocutory
Page 20 of 31
3rd August 2026
steps and delay the very final ruling in which the reserved objections are
to be decided.
mm)That the application should be dismissed, any interim stay affecting the
extradition cause be discharged, the lower court record be returned
promptly and the Trial Magistrate be directed to hear and determine the
extradition proceedings expeditiously. The Applicant’s evidential and legal
objections should be left for orderly determination by the Trial Magistrate
upon the full record, subject to any lawful challenge after the final
decision.
REPRESENTATION
4.The applicant was represented by Tumusiime, Kabega & Co. Advocates,
Lukwago & Co. Advocates and Tumukunde & Co. Advocates, while the Office
of the Director of Public Prosecutions was self represented.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
1. Whether this application for revision is premature?
2. Whether this Honourable Court should exercise its powers of revision
under Section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap. 71, Laws of Uganda) to
revise, reverse, vary, and/or set aside the ruling delivered by the learned
Chief Magistrate on the 10th day of July 2026.
RESOLUTION
Page 21 of 31
3rd August 2026
Background
5.This application was made in relation to extradition proceedings against the
applicant filed at Buganda Chief Magistrate Court under Article 123(1) of the
Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, Part I & Part II of the Extradition Act,
Cap 124, as well as the Extradition (Arrangements) (Enforcement)
Instrument, S.I. 117-1 by the Respondent. The Respondent is seeking an
Extradition court order to have the applicant taken and conveyed out of
Uganda and surrendered to the United States of America, where he is wanted
to stand trial in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia for
narcotics and firearms offences. The offences include:
a) Conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 5kilograms
or more of cocaine, knowing, intending, and having reasonable cause to
believe that it would be unlawfully imported into the United States, in
violation of Title 21, United States Code (U.S.C.), Section 963;
b) Conspiracy to possess firearms, including a machinegun and destructive
device, in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C.,
Section 924(o) and
c) Conspiracy to provide material support or resources to a designated
foreign terrorist organisation, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 2339B.
6.The application for extradition was supported by the Affidavits of a Drug
Enforcement Officer at the Rank of Special Agent attached to the United
States Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and D/SSP KULE YONA
Page 22 of 31
3rd August 2026
attached to the Criminal Investigations Directorate, Kibuli. It was further
supported by Annexures marked MKM-001 to MKM-006. The annexures
include; Warrant card number 90899 for D/SSP KULE YONA marked MKM-
001; the USA extradition request and attachments marked as MKM-002; the
Warrant of Arrest issued by the Chief Magistrate Court marked MKM-003;
Approvals from the Attorney General’s Chambers and the Minister of Justice
and Constitutional Affairs marked MKM-004; the travel itinerary bearing
biodata pages of the respondent’s passports marked MKM-005 and the
warrant of arrest issued by the USA marked MKM-006.
7.The extradition proceedings were stayed following an interim order issued by
this court,
8.This application was initially filed in the Civil Division as a Civil Application
arising from Criminal Miscellaneous Cause No. KLA-00-CR-MC-0055-2026.
Upon careful consideration, I find that the filing was procedurally defective.
The application was lodged in the wrong Division and directed against the
wrong party. In law, the Respondent (DPP) cannot be compelled to answer
civil applications except through the Attorney General. On this ground alone,
the application was liable to be struck out, as it was improperly instituted in
the Civil Division with the effect of denying the Respondent lawful audience.
Nevertheless, in exercise of her administrative functions, the Honorable the
Principal Judge intervened to safeguard the ends of justice. She ordered the
transfer of the matter to the Criminal Division, thereby curing the procedural
irregularity and ensuring that substantive justice would not be defeated by
Page 23 of 31
3rd August 2026
this procedural technicality. The matter was thereafter assigned to me, since
I had issued the orders of interim stay alluded to above.
9.By a letter dated the 17th day of July 2026, this Court (Criminal Division) issued
directives requiring the parties to serve the application, file replies, and lodge
submissions, among others. The said letter was uploaded onto ECCMIS on the
20th of July 2026, and all parties to the application were duly linked. In effect,
all parties were served with the Court’s directives.
The directives were as follows:
“The Applicant shall serve the Respondent with Revision Cause No. 0017 of
2026 by close of business on Monday, the 20th day of July 2026. As this is an
ECCMIS matter, the Systems Administrator is directed to link all parties
accordingly.
1. The Applicant shall file and serve written submissions by the 23rd
day of July 2026.
2. The Respondent shall file and serve a reply to the Applicant’s
submissions by the 28th day of July 2026.
3. The Applicant shall file any rejoinder submissions by the 28th day of
July 2026.
4. The ruling of this Court shall be delivered by the 13th day of August
2026.
Since this is a criminal reference transferred to the Criminal Division, there
shall be no requirement for a certificate of urgency.”
Page 24 of 31
3rd August 2026
10.The Respondent complied with the Court’s directives by filing its reply on the
20th of July 2026 and its submissions on the 27th of July 2026. The Applicant,
however, failed to file submissions within the stipulated time.
On the 31st of July 2026, after the Respondent had already complied, the
Applicant wrote to Court claiming not to have seen the directives and sought
an extension of time until the 3rd of August 2026 to file submissions. On the
same date, the Applicant belatedly filed a rejoinder.
11.I have considered the application, the affidavit in support, the affidavit in
reply, and the belatedly filed affidavit in rejoinder. As regards submissions, I
find that the Court is able to arrive at a well reasoned decision without
reference to them. It is trite that submissions in the High Court are a courtesy
extended to the parties and not a right. Consequently, the failure to grant
extension or audience for submissions does not prejudice the parties,
particularly where pleadings have been closed.
12.I note that the Affidavit in rejoinder reiterates earlier averments and seeks to
introduce a new issue for resolution in the following terms:
“The issue before this Honourable Court is not whether the extradition
application ultimately succeeds but whether the subordinate court
lawfully assumed jurisdiction and exercised its powers in accordance
with the Extradition Act.”
13.However, from the pleadings and more specifically the orders sought, the
cardinal ask or the basis of this application is that;
Page 25 of 31
3rd August 2026
“This Honourable Court be pleased to revise, reverse, vary and/ or set
aside the ruling delivered by the learned Chief Magistrate on the 10th day
of July 2026”.
It is my view that an issue cannot be framed from an affidavit in rejoinder but
from prior pleadings to wit the notice, the affidavit in support and that in
reply. An affidavit in rejoinder serves a very specific procedural purpose in
litigation. It is filed by the applicant in response to an affidavit in reply. Its role
is not to introduce new grounds/ issues but to clarify, rebut, or counter
allegations raised in the reply.
Disposition.
Issue 1: Whether this application for revision is premature?
14.The Respondent raised a preliminary objection, contending that the present
application is prematurely before this Court. The objection is premised on the
argument that the Applicant seeks the Court to invoke its revisionary
jurisdiction in respect of an interlocutory order, rather than a final decision.
It is asserted that this court’s power of revision is confined to final orders. I
shall therefore address and determine this objection as a threshold issue.
15.Section 17(1) of the Judicature Act, Cap. 16 provides as follows;
“The High Court shall exercise general powers of supervision over
magistrates’ courts.”
Page 26 of 31
3rd August 2026
16.Section 48 of the Criminal Procedure Code Act, Cap. 122 provides that;
“The High Court may call for and examine the record of any criminal
proceedings before any magistrate’s court for the purpose of satisfying
itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or
order recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of
the magistrate’s court.”
17.Section 50(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code Act, Cap. 122 provides that,
“In the case of any proceedings in a magistrate’s court the record of
which has been called for or which has been reported for orders, or
which otherwise comes to its knowledge, when it appears that in those
proceedings, an error material to the merits of any case or involving a
miscarriage of justice has occurred, the High Court may
a) in the case of a conviction, exercise any of the powers conferred on
it as a court of appeal by sections 34 and 41 and may enhance the
sentence;
b) in the case of any other order, other than an order of acquittal, alter
or reverse the order.
18.Section 50(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code Act, Cap. 122 reads;
“Any person aggrieved by any finding, sentence or order made or
imposed by a magistrate’s court may petition the High Court to exercise
its powers of revision under this section; but no such petition shall be
Page 27 of 31
3rd August 2026
entertained where the petitioner could have appealed against the
finding, sentence or order and has not appealed.”
19.The above provisions empower the High Court to revise the decisions of
magistrates’ courts and allow any person aggrieved by any finding or order
made by the magistrate’s court to petition the High Court to revise it.
20.In the case of Mubiru Dickson and Another v Uganda (Criminal Revision No.
290 of 2024) [2025] UGHCCRD 72 (17 December 2025), it was held by
Gadenya J that;
“It must be noted that the application for revision must be from a final order
or sentence. Revision can only be founded on a final order or judgment of the
court.”
21.He explained that;
“The test in determining the final nature of an order is whether or not the order
in question finally disposes of the rights of the parties or leaves them to be
determined by the court in any ordinary way. If the order does not finally
dispose of the parties and the matter in dispute, and leaves the suit/case alive
in which the rights of the parties have to be determined, the order will remain
interlocutory irrespective of the stage at which it is passed.”
22.I concur with the above decision and accept the position that the Court’s
revisionary jurisdiction is confined to final orders. I equally find the foregoing
Page 28 of 31
3rd August 2026
explanation material in resolving the question of whether this application is
properly before the Court.
23. In response to the above, the issue to interrogate at this point is whether the
trial Magistrate made final orders disposing of the substantive rights of the
parties, in regard to the preliminary objections raised by the applicant in
Criminal Miscellaneous Cause No. KLA-00-CR-MC-0055-2026 thereby
rendering the matter amenable to revision under the law.
24.The Applicant raises four grounds for revision, namely:
a) That the Notice of Motion was incurably defective, having been
supported by an unsworn and defective affidavit of one Michael D.
Stanton, together with a hearsay-based affidavit of D/SSP Kule Yona; b)
That the procedure adopted in commencing the proceedings, namely
by Notice of Motion, was irregular in law;
b) That the Applicant, being a diplomat at the time of the alleged
commission of the offences, was immune from prosecution; and
c) That Section 3(b) of the Extradition Act was offended by omission to
commit on the specialty doctrine.
25.From a perusal of the record of proceedings, particularly those of the 10th
day of July 2026, it is evident that the Applicant raised the above grounds for
revision as preliminary objections at various intervals during the proceedings
before the Magistrates’ Court. The trial Magistrate duly made a ruling, and
the following excerpt reflects her decision on the preliminary points raised by
the Applicant.
Page 29 of 31
3rd August 2026
“This Court is satisfied that the application does not raise any substantial
questions of constitutional interpretation under Article 137. The issues
presented are matters of application of clear constitutional provisions and
statutory law, which this Court is competent to determine. To refer the matter
to the Constitutional Court would be to abdicate jurisdiction unnecessarily and
to encourage frivolous constitutional references. Accordingly, the application
to refer the matter to the Constitutional Court is declined.”
“I have further considered the submissions of both Counsel and noted that the
matter raised under the prayers that-
a. The Respondent be discharged due to the fact that the Minister who
wrote the Request to Court did so in Error as this power lies with the
Attorney General;
b. The Application be struck out due to the fact that it is brought pursuant
the wrong procedure;
c. The Affidavit of a one Michael D. Stanton be struck for non-
commissioning and containing falsehoods;
d. The Application be struck out due to the fact that the procedure of
processing the documents for extradition in Uganda was marred by
illegality i.e. the Solicitor General participated in the writing
correspondences which contravenes the law on extradition; and
e. The Respondent be discharged because he is immune to proceeding of
this nature given the fact that he was a Deputy head of mission. Involve
matters of mixed law and fact and as such, Court cannot competently
decide on these objections without interrogation the application in full
Page 30 of 31
3rd August 2026
and evaluating evidence presented by both parties. I shall therefore
reserve resolution of the objections to be handled in final after the full
hearing of the Application. “
26.From the record/ruling above, it is evident that the trial Magistrate had not
yet undertaken the inquiry necessary to determine whether all statutory
requirements had been complied with. In other words, no definitive ruling
had been rendered on the preliminary objections raised.
I find no fault in her decision to reserve a ruling on those objections until the
conclusion of the inquiry especially given her finding that the objections
involved matters of mixed law and fact, which in her opinion could not
competently be resolved without a full interrogation of the application and
evaluation of the evidence adduced by both parties. Any trial Magistrate
enjoys the jurisdiction and power so to do.
27.From the proceedings of the lower court, I further find that the Magistrate is
yet to conduct the inquiry from which a determination on the preliminary
objections will properly arise. The objections raised as grounds for revision
are therefore still pending her decision. In other words, no final orders
disposing of the substantive rights of the parties, in regard to the preliminary
objections raised by the applicant in Criminal Miscellaneous Cause No. KLA-
00-CR-MC-0055-2026 have been made.
These preliminary objections cannot suffice as grounds of revision as no final
order has been rendered regarding the same.
Page 31 of 31
3rd August 2026
I find that this application is, in substance, an attempt to have this Court
invoke its revisionary jurisdiction in respect of matters not yet decided. Such
an approach is premature and falls outside the intended scope of revision.
28.Accordingly, this application collapses with the following orders.
Orders
a) This application is dismissed with no order as to costs.
b) The file is remitted to the Magistrates’ Court for conclusion in accordance
with the law.
c) All orders of stay entered pursuant to this application are hereby vacated.
It is so ordered.
Dated this 3rd day of August 2026 and delivered electronically via ECCMIS
pursuant to the Judicature (Electronic Filing, Service and Virtual Proceedings)
Rules, 2025.
…………………………………………………
SIMON PETER M. KINOBE
Ag. JUDGE