The High Court in Kampala has dismissed an application seeking to overturn the acquittal of Fred Lule Reagan on charges of criminal trespass and threatening violence, ruling that the case did not disclose any illegality or procedural irregularity warranting the court’s intervention through its revisionary powers.
In a ruling delivered by Hon. Justice Paul Gadenya, the court rejected an application filed by Samuel Musoke Kikomeko, the complainant in the original case before the Kasangati Chief Magistrate’s Court, who had challenged the decision acquitting Lule of the two criminal charges.
The dispute stems from a family inheritance involving the estate of the late Charles Musoke Serukeera. According to court records, both Kikomeko and Lule were beneficiaries of the estate, with each allocated separate portions of land.
Kikomeko alleged that after selling his own share and those belonging to his siblings, Lule forcefully occupied Kikomeko’s inherited land, identified as Block 99, Plot 4631, constructed structures on it, and threatened him with violence if he attempted to reclaim it.
Following unsuccessful attempts to resolve the matter amicably, criminal charges were brought against Lule before the Kasangati Chief Magistrate’s Court. However, Chief Magistrate Beatrice Kainza acquitted him of both offences, prompting Kikomeko to petition the High Court for revision of that decision.
Justice Gadenya first addressed whether Kikomeko could bring the application in the name of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). The judge held that under Article 120 of the Constitution, the DPP has exclusive authority to institute and conduct criminal proceedings, including applications for revision, and that no private individual can exercise those powers without the DPP’s express consent.
The court found that Kikomeko had not demonstrated that he obtained the DPP’s permission to institute the proceedings in the prosecution’s name.
However, the judge clarified that this did not entirely prevent Kikomeko from approaching the court. He held that under Section 50(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code Act, a complainant who is genuinely aggrieved by a criminal court’s decision may, in his own right, petition the High Court to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction, even if he was not formally a party to the criminal proceedings.
Justice Gadenya observed that Kikomeko qualified as an “aggrieved person” because he was the complainant whose land and personal safety formed the basis of the criminal charges.
Despite recognising his standing, the judge ruled that the application failed on its merits because it merely challenged the trial court’s assessment of evidence rather than identifying any jurisdictional error, illegality, or procedural impropriety.
“The applicant simply disagrees with findings of fact reached after the trial court heard the evidence,” Justice Gadenya ruled, adding that revision is not a substitute for an appeal and cannot be used to invite the High Court to re-evaluate evidence or substitute its own conclusions for those of the trial magistrate.
The court further noted that the dispute over ownership of the contested land remains the subject of a separate civil dispute and should be resolved through the appropriate civil proceedings rather than through criminal revision.
Justice Gadenya held that attempting to overturn the acquittal through revision would improperly draw the criminal process into an ongoing land ownership dispute.
Finding no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the proceedings before the trial court, Justice Gadenya dismissed the application, leaving Lule’s acquittal intact.
English 