The High Court in Kampala has dismissed an attempt by Judge Julia Sebutinde to halt a private prosecution against him,

The High Court ruling in the Sebutinde case delivered on April 17, 2026, by Alex Mackay Ajiji in Criminal Revision No. HCT-00-CR-CV-0001-2026, arising from Criminal Case No. 622 of 2025, ruled that the application was premature and fell outside the scope of its revision powers.

In his decision, Justice Ajiji held that criminal revision cannot be used to challenge ongoing proceedings before a case reaches a determinative stage such as conviction, acquittal, or final orders.

The application stemmed from a private prosecution initiated by Ssebidde Arthur Mpiima over allegations linked to failure to comply with a stop order issued under the Building Control Act.

Sebutinde had sought to terminate the proceedings, arguing that the case was marred by procedural irregularities, including what he described as an improper transfer of the file between courts, a defective charge sheet, and a flawed complaint on oath. He also questioned the legal foundation of the private prosecution and the manner in which the magistrates handled the matter.

However, the court declined to intervene.

Addressing the central issue, Justice Ajiji made it clear that the High Court’s revision jurisdiction is limited in scope.

“Revision is only meant for examination of final orders,” the judge ruled.

He added that interlocutory decisions particularly those made before plea-taking do not qualify for revision, stating that:

“Only a final order can be the subject of such proceedings.”

The court found that the criminal process had not formally commenced, as the accused persons had not yet taken plea, and therefore there was no basis for invoking revision powers.

On the question of the file’s movement between Nakawa Chief Magistrate’s Court and City Hall Court, the judge dismissed claims of illegality, describing the process as administrative rather than judicial.

“There has never been a transfer,” the court noted, explaining that the file was forwarded through proper administrative channels under the supervision of the Chief Registrar.

The ruling also upheld the magistrate’s earlier determination that there was sufficient basis to proceed with the case under private prosecution.

Quoting the lower court, the judgment referenced the finding that:

“I agree with the complaint on oath as it discloses prima facie a commission of an offence.”

Justice Ajiji emphasised that objections relating to the charge sheet, evidential sufficiency, and the validity of the stop order are matters to be tested during trial not through pre-trial applications.

He cautioned against attempts to use revision proceedings to delay the criminal process, noting that such approaches risk undermining the orderly progression of cases.

In dismissing the application in its entirety, the High Court effectively cleared the way for the case to proceed, directing that the matter be fast-tracked to hearing and conclusio