Wakilii

Kasango v Uganda (Criminal Reference 95 of 2019)

Court of Appeal · [2020] UGCA 2138 · 2020 Reference Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal reference to a bench of three Justices from the refusal of a single Justice of the Court of Appeal to grant bail pending appeal
Decision
Reference dismissed; refusal of bail pending appeal by the single Justice confirmed

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 of Appeal, sitting as a bench of three under section 12(2) of the Judicature Act, dismissed a reference against a single Justice's refusal of bail pending appeal. It held that a convicted person seeking bail pending appeal no longer enjoys the full presumption of innocence under Article 28(3)(a), having been proven guilty by a competent court, his only remaining right being the right of appeal. Bail pending appeal is not a right but a discretionary remedy granted only in exceptional circumstances and judged on the Arvind Patel guidelines. The single Justice had properly considered those guidelines and exercised his discretion judiciously; the Applicant failed to show otherwise, so there was no basis to interfere.

Facts

The Applicant was charged with and tried for theft, forgery of a judicial document, conspiracy to defraud, and conspiracy to commit a felony. He was convicted by the High Court (Anti-Corruption Court) of all charges, sentenced to sixteen years' imprisonment, and ordered to refund UGX 5,000,000,000 to the Republic of Uganda. He appealed against both conviction and sentence and applied for bail pending appeal. A single Justice of the Court of Appeal (Muhanguzi JA) declined to grant bail, finding that the Applicant was no longer entitled to the presumption of innocence, had not satisfied the Arvind Patel guidelines, had not proved exceptional circumstances, and had not proved a fixed place of abode within the jurisdiction. The Applicant brought this reference to a bench of three Justices challenging that refusal.

Issues

  1. Whether the single Justice erred in finding that the Applicant, having been convicted, was not entitled to the presumption of innocence under Article 28(3)(a) of the Constitution.
  2. Whether the single Justice properly applied the guidelines in Arvind Patel v Uganda in considering bail pending appeal.
  3. Whether the Applicant was required to, and had failed to, prove exceptional circumstances to warrant bail pending appeal.
  4. Whether the single Justice exercised his discretion judiciously such that the bench should interfere with the refusal of bail.

Orders

  • The reference is found to have no merit and is accordingly dismissed.

Key headnotes

Bail Pending Appeal — Presumption of Innocence after Conviction
A person applying for bail pending appeal no longer wholly enjoys the presumption of innocence under Article 28(3)(a) of the Constitution, having been proven guilty and convicted by a competent court; his only remaining right is the right of appeal.
Bail Pending Appeal — Discretionary Nature and Exceptional Circumstances
Bail pending appeal is not a right but is granted at the discretion of the court, exercised judiciously on the merits of each case, and as a rule of practice only in exceptional circumstances assessed against the Arvind Patel guidelines.
Criminal Reference — Interference with Exercise of Discretion by a Single Justice
On a reference under section 12(2) of the Judicature Act, a bench of three Justices will not reverse a discretionary decision of a single Justice merely because it would have decided differently, but only where the discretion was not exercised judiciously, was based on an error of principle or law, or took into account irrelevant or omitted material factors.
Bail Pending Appeal — Economic Crimes as Personal Violence
Economic crimes that deprive victims of substantial resources, though involving no physical force, may be categorised as conduct of personal violence for the purposes of assessing an application for bail pending appeal.

Legislation cited (6)

  • Constitution of Uganda Article 28(3)(a)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 28(9)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 131(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 134(2)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 137(2)
  • Judicature Act s.12(2)

Cases cited (10)

  • Okello Okello John Livingstone and 6 Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 1 of 2005)
  • Arvind Patel v Uganda (Criminal Application No. 1 of 2003)
  • Kyeyune Mitala v Uganda (Criminal Application No. 7 of 2017)
  • David Chandi Jamwa v Uganda (Criminal Application No. 9 of 2018)
  • Mugisha Gregory v Uganda (Criminal Reference No. 179 of 2011)
  • Mbogo v Shah [1968] 1 EA 93
  • Chimambhai v Republic (No. 2) [1971] 1 EA 343
  • Basiku Thomas v Uganda (Criminal Application No. 33 of 2017)
  • Busulwa Bulasio v Uganda (Criminal Application No. 6 of 2015)
  • Kato Kajubi v Uganda (Criminal Application No. 2 of 2016)
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.