Wakilii

Sserunkuuma v Uganda (Miscellaneous Criminal Application 9 of 2019)

Supreme Court · [2019] UGSC 101 · 2019 Application Granted ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to a single Justice of the Supreme Court for bail pending the hearing and determination of a criminal appeal
Decision
Bail pending appeal granted on 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

On an application for bail pending appeal under Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution and Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, the single Justice held that the applicant had satisfied the conditions for bail: he was a first offender of good character who had complied with his earlier bail terms, produced substantial sureties, had a fixed place of abode, and his appeal was not frivolous given his partial success in the Court of Appeal. The submission that the colossal sum involved and the sentences created a flight risk was rejected, particularly as the sentences ran concurrently and the sum was attributable to six convicts. Bail was granted on conditions.

Facts

The applicant was charged in 2013 in the Anti-Corruption Division of the High Court with theft, electronic fraud, unauthorised access and conspiracy to commit a felony. He was convicted in 2015 and sentenced to terms of imprisonment of 7 and 9 years. On appeal, the Court of Appeal acquitted him on the counts of unauthorised access and conspiracy, upheld the convictions for theft and electronic fraud, and reduced the sentences, which ran concurrently. The applicant filed a further appeal to the Supreme Court and applied for bail pending its determination. He relied on his compliance with prior bail terms, his status as a first offender of good character, the availability of substantial sureties, and a fixed place of abode. The State opposed the application, contending that the colossal sum involved (about UGX 3,150,000,000) and the substantial sentences created a high likelihood of absconding.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for the grant of bail pending the determination of his criminal appeal.
  2. Whether the gravity of the colossal sum involved and the sentences imposed established a likelihood of absconding sufficient to refuse bail.
  3. Whether mere compliance with earlier bail terms amounts to an exceptional circumstance justifying bail pending appeal.

Orders

  • Bail pending determination of the appeal granted.
  • The applicant to deposit a cash bond of Shs. 5,000,000.
  • The applicant to have 3 sureties, each bound non-cash in the sum of Shs. 50,000,000.
  • The Shs. 5,000,000 deposited on the grant of bail in the Court of Appeal, not yet recovered, to serve as security in this Court.
  • The applicant to report to the Registrar at the end of each month, starting 29/11/2019, until the appeal is fixed or further orders of the Court.

Key headnotes

Criminal Procedure — Bail Pending Appeal — Conditions for Grant
The Supreme Court may grant bail pending appeal where notice of appeal has been duly given and the applicant establishes such factors as good character as a first offender, substantial sureties alive to their duty, a fixed place of abode, and an appeal that is not frivolous.
Criminal Procedure — Bail Pending Appeal — Character of First Offender
The character of an applicant as a first offender who has not abused earlier bail terms is an important consideration weighing in favour of granting bail pending appeal.
Criminal Procedure — Bail Pending Appeal — Gravity of Sum Involved
The gravity of a colossal sum involved in an offence does not by itself justify the denial of bail pending appeal; where the sum is attributable to several convicts, attributing it to a single applicant to refuse bail would occasion a miscarriage of justice.
Criminal Procedure — Bail Pending Appeal — Likelihood of Absconding
An assertion that lengthy sentences create a likelihood of absconding is not made out where the sentences run concurrently rather than consecutively, and an alleged delay in hearing the appeal must be supported by evidence rather than mere speculation.

Legislation cited (9)

  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.126(2)(e)
  • Supreme Court Rules Directions 1996 r.6(1)
  • Supreme Court Rules Directions 1996 r.6(2)(a)
  • Penal Code Act s.254
  • Penal Code Act s.261
  • Penal Code Act s.390
  • Computer Misuse Act 2011 s.19
  • Computer Misuse Act 2011 s.12
  • Computer Misuse Act 2011 s.20

Cases cited (5)

  • Arvind Patel v Uganda (Criminal Application No. 1 of 2003)
  • David Chandi Jamwa v Uganda (Criminal Application No. 9 of 2018)
  • Segujja Daniel & Another v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application No. 5 of 2019)
  • Kyeyune Mitala Julius v Uganda (Criminal Application No. 9 of 2016)
  • Umar Vathl Vlshuol case No. 9 of the Supreme Court of Zambra
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.