Akutta Olupot v Uganda (Criminal Application No. 160 of 2013)

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Holding

The Court of Appeal granted the applicant bail pending the determination of his criminal appeal against an embezzlement conviction. Applying the guidelines in Arvind Patel v Uganda, the court held that not all guidelines need be present and a combination of two or more suffices. The applicant satisfied several factors: advanced age (55 years), an offence not involving personal violence, a substantial part of the sentence already served with a risk he would serve the whole term before the appeal was heard, ill health, compliance with prior bail terms, and substantial sureties. The court declined to order refund of the embezzled sums, as doing so at this stage would effectively pre-judge and dismiss the pending appeal.

Facts

The applicant was charged at the High Court Anti-Corruption Division with embezzlement and abuse of office. On 23 May 2013 he was convicted only of embezzlement and sentenced to two years' imprisonment, with an order to refund money he had stolen. His appeal against sentence to the High Court was unsuccessful, and a further appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 61 of 2013) was pending before the Court of Appeal. He applied for bail pending that appeal, asserting that he was 55 years old, suffered from several ailments, had served a substantial part of his sentence, had a fixed abode and substantial sureties, was the sole breadwinner for his family, and had complied with prior bail terms. The State opposed the application, arguing that no exceptional circumstances were shown, that the alleged delay was speculative, that the applicant was also serving a separate sentence, and that he had not refunded the embezzled funds.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant established exceptional circumstances justifying the grant of bail pending appeal.
2. Whether the proposed sureties were substantial.
3. Whether the applicant should be ordered to refund the embezzled sums as a condition of bail.

Orders

• Application granted; bail pending appeal granted on conditions.
• Applicant to deposit Ugx 500,000 with the Registrar of the court.
• Registrar of the High Court Anti-Corruption Division to surrender the applicant's passport No.B0354116 to the Registrar of this court, to remain in safe custody.
• Applicant to report to the Registrar once every month before mid-day beginning 20th December until disposal of the appeal.
• Joseph Oriono Eyatu, Olupot Peter James and Aguti Stella to stand surety, each binding by a non-cash bond of Ugx 100,000,000.
• Breach of any condition renders the bail liable to automatic cancellation.
• Registrar to fix the hearing of the appeal at the next convenient criminal session.

Key headnotes

Legislation cited (5)

• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I.13-10 Rule 6(2)
• Criminal Procedure Code Act Cap 116 s.40(2)
• Trial on Indictments Act Cap 23 s.132(4)
• Anti-Corruption Act s.19
• Anti-Corruption Act s.11

Cases cited (8)

• Arvind Patel v Uganda (Criminal Application No. 1 of 2003)
• David Chandi Jamwa v Uganda (Criminal Application No. 20 of 2011)
• Gregory Mugisha v Uganda (Criminal Reference No. 179 of 2011)
• Igamu Joanita v Uganda (Criminal Application No. 107 of 2013)
• John Kaye v Attorney General (Constitutional Application No. 25 of 2012)
• Francis Ogwang v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 25 of 2003)
• Andrew Adomora v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 9 of 1992)
• Kamanyire John v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 7 of 2001)