Ugandan courts have consistently held that civil and criminal proceedings can, in principle, be prosecuted concurrently, even if they arise from the same facts. The rationale is rooted in the distinct nature, purpose, and remedies of each type of proceeding. Civil cases address private rights and liabilities between individuals, with the standard of proof being the balance of probabilities. Criminal cases, on the other hand, address offences against society, prosecuted by the state, with the standard of proof being beyond a reasonable doubt.
The courts have emphasised that the existence of a civil suit does not, by itself, bar the institution or continuation of criminal proceedings on the same subject matter. The Supreme Court in Sarah Kulata v Uganda provided a definitive interpretation. The appellant argued that the Inspectorate of Government ("IGG") was barred from prosecuting her criminally because a civil suit on the same facts was pending. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, holding that the law does not bar the IGG from instituting criminal proceedings simply because a civil case is pending on the same facts.
The Court further clarified that the independence of the judiciary is not compromised by the concurrent prosecution of civil and criminal matters, provided that neither process is used to interfere with or review the other.
The most recent and authoritative restatement of the law is the Court of Appeal decision in Uganda v Kamoga Muhammadi. In this case, the High Court had stayed criminal proceedings on the basis that there was a pending civil suit over the same land. The Court of Appeal quashed the stay, allowing the criminal prosecutions to proceed, and stated that criminal proceedings, being of public interest, generally take precedence over civil matters. The Court emphasised that there is no automatic rule requiring the stay of criminal proceedings because of pending civil cases. Criminal and civil cases serve different purposes and can proceed concurrently. A stay may only be justified in exceptional circumstances, such as where there is a real risk to a fair trial or clear abuse of process, but such circumstances were not present in Kamoga.
However, the High Court has not strictly followed this principle, contrary to the doctrine of precedent. The decisions of the superior courts are binding to the High Court and the Magistrates Court. The High Court has, in some cases, exercised exceptions without differentiating from the Superior Court decisions. In such cases, the courts have sometimes stayed criminal proceedings to avoid conflicting judgments and abuse of process.
In Simba Properties v Vantage Mezzanine, the High Court reiterated that there is no automatic rule requiring the stay of criminal proceedings because of pending civil or arbitral proceedings, and each case must be considered on its own facts. However, the court recognised that where criminal proceedings are used as improper pressure in a civil dispute, or where the issues are identical and the civil court's decision would be conclusive, a stay may be justified to prevent abuse of process.
Key principles derived from Ugandan jurisprudence
- No absolute bar: There is no absolute legal bar to the concurrent prosecution of civil and criminal proceedings arising from the same facts.
- Distinct purposes: Civil and criminal proceedings serve different purposes and are governed by different standards of proof and remedies.
- Public interest: Criminal proceedings, being of public interest, generally take precedence unless there is a compelling reason to stay them.
- Judicial discretion: Courts may exercise discretion on a case-by-case basis to stay one set of proceedings in exceptional circumstances, particularly to prevent abuse of process, avoid conflicting judgments, or where the civil issue is.
Conclusion
Ugandan courts uphold the principle that civil and criminal proceedings can proceed concurrently. The High Court needs to consider the superior court decisions in upholding or differentiating this significant principle of judicial process. A consistent and clear determination of concurrent civil and criminal proceedings upholds the rule of law, the doctrine of precedent and ensures predictability. For instance, the guiding consideration to differentiate the superior court decisions is the nature of the dispute, the potential for injustice, and the public interest in the administration of justice.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
