Wakilii

Tindifa v Uganda (Crim Applic. No 13 of 2013)

Court of Appeal · [2013] UGCA 4 · 2013 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for bail pending the hearing of a criminal appeal against conviction and sentence
Decision
Application for bail pending appeal dismissed; applicant remains in custody pending determination of his appeal

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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 by a 79-year-old convict serving 15 years for manslaughter. Applying the considerations in Arvind Patel v Uganda, the court found that the applicant failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of success because no memorandum of appeal or record of proceedings had been furnished, the offence of manslaughter involved personal violence, the affidavit was silent on whether he was a first offender and on his character, and the proposed sureties were not substantial. Although the grounds relating to prior bail compliance and advanced age were conceded or unrebutted, advanced age is not a criterion. The applicant had not made out a case for the exercise of discretion, and the application was dismissed.

Facts

The applicant was tried by the High Court sitting at Bushenyi, convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment on 13 August 2010. He lodged a notice of appeal and brought this application for bail pending the hearing and determination of his Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2011. He contended that his appeal had high chances of success because his rights were allegedly not considered during plea taking and his advocate had failed to protect them, that he had previously complied with mandatory bail before committal, that he was 79 years old with a deteriorating medical condition, and that the appeal might be substantially delayed. No memorandum of appeal or record of proceedings had been filed. The State opposed the application, noting the offence of manslaughter involved personal violence (the applicant broke into a room and caused his wife a fatal head injury), and challenged the proposed sureties as unverifiable and not law-abiding. The State filed no affidavit in reply.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant, a convict who has lodged a criminal appeal, satisfied the considerations for the grant of bail pending appeal.

Orders

  • The application is disallowed.

Key headnotes

Bail — Bail Pending Appeal — Discretionary Jurisdiction
A court has discretionary jurisdiction under section 132(4) of the Trial on Indictments Act and section 40(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code to grant bail to a convicted person who has lodged a criminal appeal, and that discretion must be exercised judiciously.
Bail — Bail Pending Appeal — Considerations in Arvind Patel
In considering bail pending appeal a court has regard to the applicant's character, whether he is 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, and prior compliance with bail conditions; not all considerations need be present, but a combination of two or more may suffice, and each case turns on its own facts.
Bail — Bail Pending Appeal — Likelihood of Success Requires Memorandum and Record
Where no memorandum of appeal or record of proceedings has been furnished, the court cannot assess whether the appeal has a reasonable likelihood of success, and an unsupported assertion of prospects of success will fail.
Bail — Bail Pending Appeal — Effect of Conviction on Presumption of Innocence
Once an accused has been tried and convicted, the presumption of innocence no longer applies, and the chances of absconding if released on bail are correspondingly higher than for an accused still under trial; prior compliance with bail before conviction is therefore of limited weight.
Bail — Bail Pending Appeal — Advanced Age Not a Criterion
Advanced age is not among the criteria for the grant of bail pending appeal, since to treat it as such could provide an excuse to perpetuate crime with impunity.
Bail — Bail Pending Appeal — Personal Violence and Substantial Sureties
An offence of manslaughter is an offence involving personal violence weighing against bail pending appeal, and sureties whose particulars cannot be verified or who are not shown to be law-abiding are not substantial sureties.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Trial on Indictments Act, Cap 23, s.132(4)
  • Criminal Procedure Code Act, Cap 116, s.40(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions, SI 13-10, Rule 43(1)

Cases cited (2)

  • Arvind Patel v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2003)
  • Adan v Republic [1973] EA 445
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.