Areas for Research.

- Define a charge sheet and an Indictment.

- Contents of a charge sheet.
- Rules governing framing of a chargesheet?
- What makes a chargesheet totally defective?
- Can a chargesheet be amended and When?
- How does an indictment look like and its contents?
- Committal proceedings.

First and foremost, a charge is a formal written accusation of an offence drawn up by either a
police officer or a magistrate and signed by a magistrate to be used in a magistrate’s court as a
basis for trial or preliminary proceedings. A chargesheet is a formal document submitted by
police to a court after competing an investigation into a crime outlining the collected evidence
and charges against the accused. A charge sheet can also be referred to as Police report.

A formal charge is of the essence in criminal procedure and the failure by a magistrate to draw
up and sign a formal charge is a defect which renders the trial a nullity as was the case in R-vs
Tambukiza 1958 E.A 2121. It is the primary duty of the magistrate to satisfy himself that the
section of the Penal Code under which the accused is charged is correct before assuming
jurisdiction to try the case.

On another hand, an Indictment is a formal written accusation of an offence drawn up and

signed by the DPP and filed in the registry of the high court to be used as a basis for trial in that
court. The purpose of the charge is to state concisely the offence the accused is alleged to have
committed and also to bring to the accused ’s knowledge the nature of the offence brought
against him or her in order for him to prepare his defence.

The difference between a charge and an indictment is one of form and not of substance. Both
charges and indictments must contain a statement of the offence committed and the particulars of
that offence as provided under Section 85 of Magistrates Court Act cap 19 2is to the effect that
every charge shall contain and shall be sufficient if it contains, a statement of the specific offence
or offences with which the accused person is charged together with such particulars as may be
1
R-vs Tambukiza 1958 E.A 212
2
Section 85 of Magistrates Court Act cap 19
necessary for giving reasonable information as to the nature of the offence charged and section
23 of the Trial on Indictment Act cap 253 is to the effect that every indictment shall contain and
shall be sufficient if it contains a statement of the specific offence or offences with which the
accused person is charged together with such particulars as may be necessary for giving
reasonable information as to the nature of the offence charged.

A chargesheet is a document inducting which the accused is said to have committed and the
details surrounding the commission of that offence and it is filled in the Magistrate courts. An
indictment performs the same role as the charge sheet except that it is filled in the High court.

Filling a charge sheet is a crucial step in the criminal justice process and must be done only after
the completion of an investigation.

The rule of framing of an indictment is contained under section 26 (a-q) of the Trial on
Indictment Act cap 254 and its to the effect that the following provisions shall apply to all
indictments and notwithstanding any rule of law or price, an indictment shall subject to this act
not be open to objection in respect of its form or consents if it is framed in accordance with this
Act; account of an indictment shall commence with statement of the offence charged called;
“statement of the offence”, where by it shall describe the offence shortly in ordinary language
avoiding possible use of technical terms and without necessarily stating all the essential elements
of the offence and it shall contain a reference to the section of the enactment creating the offence,
particulars of the offence where they shall be set out in ordinary language, where an indictment
contains more than one count, the counts shall be numbered consecutively, the description of the
property in an indictment shall be in ordinary language avoiding the use of technical terms,
where the property in an indictment is owned by more than one person, it shall be sufficient to
describe the property owned by each person by name and where the property belongs to public, it
shall be described as government property.

Under section 27 of the Trial on Indictments Act 5provides that all indictments shall be in the
name subject to section 135 where by all prosecutions before High Court shall be conducted by a
member of Attorney General’s chambers or by such a person as the Director of Public
prosecutions may by writing under his or her hand appoint.
3
section 23 of the Trial on Indictment Act cap 25
4
section 26 (a-q) of the Trial on Indictment Act cap 25
5
section 27 of the Trial on Indictments Act
Under section 135(2) of the Trial on Indictments Act cap 256, an appointment by the Director
of the Public Prosecutions shall mu be for a particular case or for a specified class or series of
cases and every person so appointed shall be under the express direction of the Director of the
Public Prosecutions.

Under section 28 of the Trial on Indictment Act cap 257, every Indictment shall bear the date
of the day when it is signed and with such modifications as shall be necessary to adapt it to the
circumstances of each case, may commence in the following form;

“ In the High court of Uganda at ……………………………the day ………..2025, at the

sessions held at …………….. ………….. …………… day of …………2025, the court
informed by the Director of Public Prosecutions that ………………. is charged with the
following offence (offences).

Subsection (2) of section 28 of Trial on Indictment Act is to the effect that the Registrar of the
High court shall give the accused person and the Director of the Public Prosecutions reasonable
notice, not being less than fourteen days of the date of trial.

Contents of a chargesheet.

A chargesheet just like a indictment consists of four parts that is;

- The commencement
- Statement of the offence
- Particulars of the offence
- The conclusion

Section 85 of the Magistrate’s courts Act cap 19 8provides that every charge must contain a
statement of the specific offence or offences with which the accused person is charged together
with such particulars as may be necessary for giving reasonable information as to the nature of
the offence charged.

6
section 135(2) of the Trial on Indictments Act cap 25
7
section 28 of the Trial on Indictment Act cap 25
8
Section 85 of the Magistrate’s courts Act cap 19
Commencement states the place of court’s jurisdiction, indicate that the charge is preferred by
the Uganda police, while stating the name of the police station, date when the charge is preferred,
the police charge number for example, Old Kampala police station charge no. 010/2025. The
account of charge shall commence with statement of the offence, called the statement of the
offence.

The statement of the offence shall describe the offence shortly in ordinary Language, avoiding
the technical terms, and without necessarily stating all the essential elements of the offence and if
the offence is one created by enactment shall contain a reference to the section of the enactment
creating the offence for example; Mudder contrary to section 171 &172 of the Penal Code Act
Cap 1289 which provides that any person who of malice a forethought causes death of another
person by an unlawful act or omission commits murder and is liable on conviction to suffer
death.

Next is Particulars of the offence which shall be set out in ordinary language in which the use of
technical terms shall not be necessary. These particulars inform the accused as to the
circumstances such as time, place, conduct, subject matter of the crime which has thus been
alleged against him. Only those particulars as are necessary to give the accused reasonable
information as to the nature of the charges as provided under section 188(c) of the magistrate’s
Courts Act cap 1910.

Where a chargesheet contains more than one count, the counts shall be numbered for example 1
to 10 and there must be reference of the law creating them for example Attempted Murder
contrary to section 187 of the Penal code Act cap 12811.

When the person is charged with any offence under sections 266-269 of the penal code Act cap
128 such as Robbery, embezzlement, causing financial loss, it shall be necessary to specify those
gross amount of property in respect of which the offence is alleged to have been committed and
the dates between which the offence is alleged to have been committed and the dates between
which the offence is alleged to have been committed without specifying particular items or exact
dates.

9
section 171 &172 of the Penal Code Act Cap 128
10
section 188(c) of the magistrate’s Courts Act cap 19
11
Attempted Murder contrary to section 187 of the Penal code Act cap 128
The full name and address of the accused must be contained on the chargesheet. It is desirable
that his tribe or race, occupation, place of abode should also be inserted. The magistrate should
always ensure that the name on the chargesheet is the name of the person standing before the
court waiting to be charged.

It is sufficient to describe any place, time, thing, matter act in a chargesheet in ordinary language.
The time of the offence need not be stated unless the time is relevant for commission of the
offence. For example, the offence of Burglary contrary to section 275 of the penal code Act cap
12812, the time must be stated because it can only be committed in the night time. In the case of
Judagi and Ors v WestNile District Administration [1963]1 EA 406 13the appellants were
charged in the district African court of West Nile with an offence under section 211 of the penal
code Act cap 128. The record stated that having a charge was read and explained to them and that
they having understood it, pleaded not guilty thereto. The charge itself had particulars of it were
not set out anywhere in the record. Court held that it is the duty of any court, before which an
accused person is tried, to record in full, at the beginning of the proceedings and before
recording of the pleas, the particulars of the charge and the relevant section of the law, if any,
under which the charge read and explained to the accused and to which the pleads is laid. If in
the course of the trial, the charge is amended then the amended charge together with the new
plea should be recorded in the body of the proceedings at the appropriate stage at which the
amendment is made hence the Retrial was ordered.

Rules governing formation of a charge sheet.

- The age of the accused is normally irrelevant and may not be stated unless known. It is
however necessary to indicate the age in the particulars of offence where need arises for
example in a charge of defilement centrally to Section 116 of the Penal Code Act cap
128, the age of the victim is very important.
- The marital status is not normally necessary but should be indicated in the particulars of
the offence where need arises for example on a charge of Bigamy by a man contrary to
section 142 of the Penal code Act cap 12814, the woman with whom a man goes through
a marriage ceremony with must be a married woman, therefore this fact must be stated.
12
section 275 of the penal code Act cap 128
13
Judagi and Ors v WestNile District Administration [1963]1 EA 406
14
section 142 of the Penal code Act cap 128
 In the case of Uganda v Bwambale and Anor (1979) HCB 252 15where the accused were
charged with Elopement contrally to section 114 of the Penal Code Act Cap 128. However,
the particulars of the charge on the side of the woman did not disclose that she had
knowledge that the man was married. The two admitted the charges but the man did not
admit that the woman was married.

Court Held that charge in count 2 did not disclose any offence as the offence could only be
committed by a female eloping with a married man. Since knowledge by the woman that the
man was a married man was an essential ingredient of the offence, count 2 was therefore
defective.

In the case of Sosipeter Opale s/o Idiawo v R [1962] 1 EA 661, The appellant was
convicted of arson contrary to section 304(a) of the Penal Code cap 128, under which the
act of setting fire must be both unlawful and willful. In the particulars of the offence there
was no allegation that the appellant’s act was either unlawful or willful. On appeal, it was
held that the charge was clearly defective but not bad and in the circumstances of the case no
prejudice or embarrassment had been caused to the appellant at his trial by the defect in the
charge. Also, no substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred and the provision as to the
Criminal Procedure Code was applicable. The question of applying the proviso is to be
considered, therefore, not upon the basis that the indictment disclosed no known offence, but
that it described a known offence with incomplete particulars.” Appeal was dismissed

A chargesheet should be signed by the police officer preferring the charge before filing it in
court as a means of authenticating it. After it has been filled, the magistrate should sign it
before calling upon the accused to plead to it. If it is an indictment, it should be signed by the
DPP as per section 27 of the Trial on Indictment Act cap 2516.

In the case of Uganda vs Byaruhanga, (1975) HCB 258 it was held that the charge sheet
should be signed by the police officer who brings it and the magistrate should not accept to
proceed with the charge until it is signed.

What makes a chargesheet Defective?

15
Uganda v Bwambale and Anor (1979) HCB 252
16
section 27 of the Trial on Indictment Act cap 25
 A defect in a charge may come about either because of failure to comply with the rules of
framing charges or indictments as provided under section 88 of the Magistrates Courts Act
cap1917 and section 26 of the Trial on indictment Act cap. 25 18or as a result of a
misjoinder of offences or persons. However, whatever error or defect there maybe, the
validity of the proceedings cannot be questioned unless such error is material to the merits of
the case and involves a miscarriage of justice. This is provided under section 42(2) of the
Magistrates Court Act cap 1919.

In the case of Uganda v Borespeyo Mpaya [1975] HCB 245 20it was stated that Miscarriage
of justice occurs where by reason of a mistake, omission or irregularity in trial, the appellant
has lost chance of acquittal which was otherwise open to him.

In the case of Uganda Vs Dickens Elatu and another21, the two parties were charged under
the following charge sheet. Statement of offence Adultery contrary to section 150 A (1) and
(2) of the penal code. Particulars of offence on Count no 1. Dickens Elatu on the 22nd day of
October 1971, at oyama village, k’do subcounty, kaberamaido county in the Teso district, you
were found committing adultery with Bibiyan Akello, a married woman not being your wife.
Count no II. Bibian Akello on the 22nd day of October 1971, at oyama village, k’do
subcounty, kaberamaido county in the Teso district, you were found committing adultery
with Dickens Elatu, not being your husband.

The defects in this charge were; While accepting this as an irregularity, the learned judge held
that it did not occasion a miscarriage of justice. The accused was not in any way misled as to
the nature of the offences with which they were charged. There was therefore no miscarriage
of justice.

In the case of Sosipeter Opale s/o Idiawo v R [1962] 1 EA 66122 The appellant was
convicted of arson contrary to section 304(a) of the Penal Code, under which the act of
setting fire must be both unlawful and wilful. In the particulars of the offence there was no
allegation that the appellant’s act was either unlawful or wilful. On appeal it was held that the
17
section 88 of the Magistrates Courts Act cap19
18
section 26 of the Trial on indictment Act cap. 25
19
section 42(2) of the Magistrates Court Act cap 19
20
Uganda v Borespeyo Mpaya [1975] HCB 245
21
Uganda Vs Dickens Elatu and another
22
Sosipeter Opale s/o Idiawo v R [1962] 1 EA 661
 charge was clearly defective but not bad and in the circumstances of the case no prejudice or
embarrassment had been caused to the appellant at his trial by the defect in the charge. Hence
the Appeal dismissed

In the case of Njuguna v Republic [2003] 1 EA 206 23The Appellant was tried and convicted
on a charge of robbery centrally to section 266 of the Penal code Act cap 128 24with
violence and sentenced to death. The Appellant’s appeal was predicated on grounds that the
charge was defective because of discrepancy between the amount of money stated in the
charge sheet as having been stolen and the amount stated in the evidence of the witness.
Whether stating in a charge sheet a lesser amount than that actually stolen rendered the
charge defective or was a mere irregularity. Court held that, stating in a charge sheet a lesser
amount than the amount which was actually stolen was no more than an irregularity in the
charge sheet and it did not render the charge defective.

Duplicity of Charges.

A charge which is duplex is defective and may be bad in law if the defect cannot be cured by
correction of otherwise. If two or more offences are included in one count, the charge is bad
for duplicity because only one offence can be charged in a count. Two or more offences can
be charged in one charge provided they are contained in separate counts. For instance, if the
accused has assaulted two persons at the same time, the accused may be charged with the
assault of the two persons in the same charge, but the assault on each person is to be charged
in a separate count because assaulting any person is a complete and separate offence even if
committed in the same transaction. Similarly, if two accused persons assault a person on two
different occasions, they cannot be charged in one count or same charge sheet, but in separate
charge sheets so that each person will be tried separately.

It is therefore clear that a charge is bad for duplicity if it contains a misjoinder of counts or
offences, or a misjoinder of persons or offenders.

In the case of Laban Koti v R [1962] 1 EA 439 25where the appellant was charged with and
convicted of wrongfully attempting to interfere with or influence witnesses in a judicial

23
Njuguna v Republic [2003] 1 EA 206
24
section 266 of the Penal code Act cap 128
25
Laban Koti v R [1962] 1 EA 439
 proceeding, either before or after they had given evidence. On appeal it was suggested that
the charge might be bad for duplicity, firstly because it alleged that the appellant “wrongfully
attempted to interfere with or influence” witnesses, and secondly because it alleged that such
attempt occurred “either before or after” the witness had given evidence.

Court Held that In deciding whether there is duplicity in a charge the test is whether a failure
of justice has occurred or the accused has been prejudiced and interference may involve
either a physical act, such as preventing a witness from appearing to give evidence, or it may
involve an act of persuasion or dissuasion; the words which the appellant used to the
witnesses were both persuasive and of an influential nature and dismissed the Appeal.

Unnecessary Charges.

(a) Attempts. Where a person is charged with having committed an offence, it is not
necessary to add a count for attempt to commit the same offence since he can be
convicted as provided for under section 146 of the magistrates Courts Act.
(b) Section 147 of the Magistrates Court Act 26provides for Conviction for being accessory
after the fact that when police is charged with an offence, he or she may be convicted of
being an accessory after the fact to the commission of the offence although he or she was
not so charged.
(c) Section 148 of the Magistrates Court Act cap. 19 27provides for Conviction in respect
of charges relating to death of a child that when a person is charged with the
Manslaughter of any child or with infanticide, or with an offence under section 133 or
134 of the penal code Act, and the court is of the opinion that he or she is not guilty of
manslaughter or infanticide or of an offence but he or she is guilty of the offence of
killing an unborn child, he or she may be convicted of that offence although he or she not
charged with it.

When can a chargesheet or Indictment be Amended?

Section 132 of the Magistrates Courts Act cap.19 28provides for amendment of charges.
Section 132(1) of the Magistrates Court Act is to the effect that where at any stage of a trial,
26
section 146 of the magistrates Courts Act.
Section 147 of the Magistrates Court Act
27
Section 148 of the Magistrates Court Act cap. 19
28
Section 132 of the Magistrates Courts Act cap.19
 it appears to a magistrate’s court that the evidence discloses an offence other than the offence
with the accused is charged, the charge is defective in a material particular or the accused
desires to plead guilty to the charges other than the offence he or she is charged, then the
court if it is satisfied that no justice to the accused will be caused thereby may make such
order for alteration of the charge by way of its amendment or by the substitution or addition
of a new charge as it thinks necessary to meet the circumstance of the case.

Section 132 (2) of the Magistrates Court Act 29provides that where the charge is altered, the
magistrate shall thereupon call upon the accused person to plead to the altered charge. The
accused will have a right to give or call such further evidence on his or her behalf as he or
she may wish. The amendment of the charge is made at the request of or application of the
prosecutor and the court has discretion to permit the amendment before judgment is
pronounced. The court can amend a charge at any stage of the trial, even after the close of the
case for the defense provided no injustice is caused to the accused.

Section 52 (1) of the Trial on Indictment Act Cap. 25 30provides that where an indictment
is altered under section 51, the court shall thereupon call upon the accused person to plead
the altered indictment.

Amendments should be limited to periods before judgment is pronounced otherwise grave

injustice would be caused to the accused by having to reopen the case after a verdict of an
acquittal. In the case of Maulidi Abdulla Chengo v R [1964] 1 EA 12231, a new charge
which carried a more severe penalty than the original charge was substituted at the close of
the case for the defense. It was held that such substitution at such a late stage of an entirely
new charge for a more serious offence couldn’t be said to have been made without injustice
to the appellant.

In the case of Yusufu Maumba v Republic [1966] 1 EA 167 (CAD)32 Whether magistrate
empowered to amend charge after conviction The appellant was charged on six counts of
stealing by a servant, he being a person employed in the East African Railways and Harbours
Administration. The appellant pleaded guilty to five of the counts and the magistrate
29
Section 132 (2) of the Magistrates Court Act
30
Section 52 (1) of the Trial on Indictment Act Cap. 25
31
Maulidi Abdulla Chengo v R [1964] 1 EA 122
32
Yusufu Maumba v Republic [1966] 1 EA 167 (CAD)
 accordingly convicted him on those five counts but deferred sentence until after the trial of
the sixth count.

In Fred Sabahashi v Uganda (1994) V KALR 127 33it was held that when court must
proceed with a lesser charge than the one in the original indictment, the accused person must
be required to plead to the altered indictment. The trial court therefore erred in not letting the
accused plead to the altered indictment. However, this did not occasion a miscarriage of
justice since the accused were offered an opportunity to defend themselves against the altered
indictment of manslaughter Look at section 132(6) Magistrates Courts Act cap 1934, the
prosecution may be ordered by the court to pay costs incurred to the accused owing to the
alter.

Committal Proceedings.

Committal proceedings are pre-trial stage where a lower court (Magistrate’s court) assesses
the strength of the Prosecution’s case and determines if its suitable for a trial in High court.

Committal proceedings serve as a screening mechanism to determine if there’s sufficient

evidence to warrant a trial in the High Court.

The state Attorney prepares “committal papers” that are presented to the magistrate’s court
the reviews the evidence and decides whether to commit the accused for trial in the High
court.

Committal proceedings are governed by section 168 of the Magistrates courts Act cap 1935.
Under section 168(1) of the Magistrates Court Act provides that when a person is charged in
a Magistrate’s Court with an offence to be tried by the High Court, the Director of Public
Prosecutions shall file the Magistrate court an indictment and a summary of the case signed
by him or her or by an officer authorized by him or her in that behalf acting in accordance
with his or her general or special directions.

33
Fred Sabahashi v Uganda (1994) V KALR 127
34
section 132(6) Magistrates Courts Act cap 19
35
section 168 of the Magistrates courts Act cap 19
Under subsection (2) is to the effect that the summary of the case referred to in subsection (1)
shall contain such particulars as are necessary to give the accused person reasonable information
as to the nature of the offence with which he or she is charged.

Under section 168(3) of the Magistrates Court Act, when a person charged with an offence to
be tried by the High Court appears before a magistrate’s court and the Director of Public
Prosecutions has compiled with subsection (1) the Magistrate shall;

(a) Give the accused a copy of the indictment together with the summary of the case,
(b) Read out the indictment and the summary of the case and explain to the accused person
the nature of the accusation against him or her in a language he or she understands and
inform him or her that he or she is not required to plead to the indictment.
(c) Commit the accused person for trial by the High Court and transmit to the registrar of the
High court copies of the indictment and the summary of the case.

Subsection (4) is to the effect that if a person committed for trial by the High court is on bail
granted by any court, without prejudice his or her right to apply to the High Court for bail shall
lapse and the magistrate shall remand him or her in custody pending his or her trial.

This section was challenged in the case of Sam Kuteesa and Ors V Attorney General
Constitutional Petition No. 46 of 201136 where petitioners challenged the constitutionality of
section 168 (4) of the Magistrates Court Act vis-à-vis Article 23 (6)(a) of the constitution. they
sought court to declare the order that the impugned section is inconsistent with and in
contravention of the constitution, that bail granted by magistrates to an accused does not lapse by
reason of that person being committed for trial to the High court and that the committing
Magistrate’s court has power to maintain or grant bail to the person being committed. court
held to the extent that section 168(4) allows an inferior court to cancel the bail granted to an
accused by the superior court such as High Court which has unlimited original jurisdiction in all
matters and to which decisions of inferior courts go by way of appeal under article 139, is in our
view inconsistent with the said Article 139 and is therefore in contradiction with section (4) of
the Judicature Act hence it was null and Void.

36
Sam Kuteesa and Ors V Attorney General Constitutional Petition No. 46 of 2011