Wakilii

Teddy Sseezi Cheeye v Uganda (Misc. Appl. No. 37 of 2009)

Court of Appeal · [2009] UGCA 25 · 2009 Application Granted ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for bail pending the hearing and determination of a criminal appeal against conviction
Decision
Bail pending appeal granted on stated terms and conditions

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Court considered an application for bail pending appeal under section 132(4) of the Trial on Indictments Act and section 40 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Applying the considerations in Arvind Patel v Uganda, the Court held that not all factors need be present and that a combination of two or more may suffice. It found that the applicant was a man of good character, a first offender, convicted of non-violent offences, with an appeal that was not frivolous and a reasonable possibility of success, a likely delay in hearing the appeal, and prior compliance with bail conditions. The Court exercised its discretion and granted bail on stated terms.

Facts

The applicant was tried by the Anti-Corruption Court at Kampala, convicted of embezzlement and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment, and convicted on 8 counts of forgery with 3 years on each count, to run concurrently. He was also ordered to pay UGX 100 million. The convictions arose from money received by a company (Uganda Centre for Accountability) from the global fund, of which the applicant was a director and, on the prosecution case, a sole signatory who withdrew the funds. The applicant lodged Criminal Appeal No. 105 of 2009 against all convictions and sentences and applied for bail pending appeal. He relied on his good character, being a first offender, the non-violent nature of the offences, his compliance with prior bail terms during trial, his poor health (diabetes and hypertensive heart disease), and arguments that the conviction was wrongly based on vicarious liability and uncorroborated accomplice evidence, raising a reasonable possibility of success on appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant, a convicted person with a pending appeal, satisfied the considerations for the grant of bail pending appeal.
  2. Whether the applicant's appeal raised a reasonable possibility of success so as to favour the grant of bail.

Orders

  • Application for bail pending appeal granted.
  • Applicant to pay cash bail of UGX 60,000,000.
  • Applicant to surrender his passport to the Registrar of the Court.
  • Applicant to report to the Registrar of the Court every fortnight at 9:00 a.m. beginning 3 August 2009.
  • Mr. John Ndyabagye, Mrs. Allison Kantarama Emirembe and Mr. Edward Wayeneza to act as sureties.
  • Each surety to execute a bail bond of UGX 50,000,000 (not cash).
  • Registrar directed to fix the applicant's appeal within the coming criminal session.

Key headnotes

Criminal Procedure — Bail Pending Appeal — Discretionary Jurisdiction
A court has discretionary jurisdiction under section 132(4) of the Trial on Indictments Act and section 40 of the Criminal Procedure Code to grant bail to a convicted person who has lodged a criminal appeal, and this discretion must be exercised judiciously.
Criminal Procedure — Bail Pending Appeal — Distinction from Bail at Trial
Once an accused person has been convicted, the principles governing release on bail differ from those applying before conviction, because the presumption of innocence and the right to prepare a defence are no longer present.
Criminal Procedure — Bail Pending Appeal — Arvind Patel Considerations
The considerations for bail pending appeal include the applicant's character, whether they are a first offender, whether the offence involved personal violence, whether the appeal is not frivolous and has a reasonable possibility of success, the possibility of substantial delay in the appeal, and prior compliance with bail conditions; not all considerations need be present and a combination of two or more may suffice.
Criminal Procedure — Bail Pending Appeal — Medical Grounds and Hardship to Dependants
Poor health does not justify bail pending appeal where prison medication has produced marked improvement, and alleged hardship to an applicant's dependants does not by itself justify a grant of bail.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Trial on Indictments Act (Cap 23) s.132(4)
  • Criminal Procedure Code Act (Cap 116) s.40
  • Criminal Procedure Code Act (Cap 116) s.40(2)

Cases cited (5)

  • Arvind Patel v Uganda (Criminal Application No. 1 of 2003)
  • Kilanda and others vs. Uganda [1984] HCB 18
  • Nalukenge Mildred v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application No. 56 of 2008)
  • Ntambi Kayongo John and Another v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application No. 10 of 2008)
  • Nsubuga Gerald and Another v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application No. 37 of 2008)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.