The High Court in Kampala has dismissed an appeal by city lawyer Male H. Mabirizi Kiwanuka challenging the rejection of his private criminal complaint against Chief of Defence Forces (CDF) Muhoozi Kainerugaba and 17 others over the alleged management of the Patriotic League of Uganda (PLU).
In a ruling delivered on October 20, 2026, High Court Criminal Division Judge Gadenya Paul Wolimbwa held that the complaint lacked sufficient factual details to establish a prima facie case against the 18 respondents or justify issuing criminal summonses against them.
The judge ruled that the appeal did not raise an arguable question of law warranting further examination and consequently dismissed it summarily under Section 32(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code Act.
“The appeal had no sustainable basis from the outset,” Justice Wolimbwa ruled.
The case arose from a private criminal complaint filed by Mabirizi in February 2024, alleging that the respondents had launched, managed or assisted in managing the PLU at a meeting held on February 7, 2024, at Plot 7, Sandler Lane, Naguru, in Kampala.
Mabirizi had sought criminal summonses against the respondents over four proposed offences: managing an unlawful society, conspiracy to commit a felony, holding out as a member of an unlawful society, and making speeches likely or intended to encourage support for an unlawful society.
However, Nakawa Chief Magistrates Court, through magistrate Frank Namanya, rejected the complaint on May 24, 2024, without issuing the requested summonses.
Dissatisfied with the decision, Mabirizi appealed, arguing that the magistrate had wrongly relied on consultations with local administrators and failed to properly consider his sworn affidavit detailing the alleged offences.
In dismissing the appeal, Justice Wolimbwa said that although a private complainant does not have to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt before criminal summonses can be issued, the complaint must contain sufficient facts showing the essential elements of an alleged offence and linking the proposed accused persons to it.
The judge observed that Mabirizi’s affidavit identified the organisation, the meeting, its leadership and political objective but failed to provide the factual details necessary to establish the alleged criminal conduct.
“The affidavit is flawed in that it passes from those points to conclusions of criminality without providing any facts to support the essential intermediate propositions,” the ruling states.
Justice Wolimbwa further held that the existence of an organisation and its political objectives did not, by themselves, establish that it was unlawful.
He noted that the complaint did not identify specific decisions, instructions or actions through which the organisation allegedly intended to interfere with or resist the administration of justice.
The judge also found that the allegations of conspiracy lacked details of an agreement or conduct demonstrating that the respondents shared a criminal intention.
On the proposed charge of making speeches in support of an unlawful society, the court noted that the affidavit did not identify the alleged speakers or provide sufficient details about the content of the speeches.
The judge said the complaint also failed to distinguish the alleged actions of the individual respondents, instead generally attributing all four offences to all 18 people without sufficient supporting facts.
Addressing the issue of further investigations, Justice Wolimbwa ruled that a magistrate has discretion, rather than a mandatory obligation, to direct police to investigate or conduct further inquiries when a private complaint fails to establish an offence.
He said the court was not required to build a case for the complainant, identify missing evidence or order investigations to establish allegations that had not been sufficiently supported.
“The court is under no duty to provide that missing basis by carrying out further investigation,” the judge ruled.
The judge clarified that the dismissal was based on the legal insufficiency of the complaint and did not amount to a determination that every activity of the PLU was lawful.
He also said the failure to provide sufficient evidence did not, by itself, establish that Mabirizi had acted with an improper motive.
The High Court consequently upheld the May 24, 2024 decision rejecting the complaint, declined to order further investigations or a rehearing, and confirmed that the application for criminal summonses against the respondents had been rejected.
The ruling was delivered electronically through the Electronic Court Case Management Information System (ECCMIS).
