Wakilii

Kimeze v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application 12 of 2019)

Supreme Court · [2019] UGSC 99 · 2019 Application Granted ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for bail pending appeal to the Supreme Court, before a single Justice, arising from a Court of Appeal decision upholding conviction and sentence.
Decision
Bail pending appeal granted to the applicant 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 by a bank manager convicted of causing financial loss, embezzlement and conspiracy to defraud and sentenced to eight years' imprisonment, the single Justice held that the right to bail under Article 23(6)(a) is only a right to apply, the grant being discretionary, and that the constitutional presumption of innocence survives conviction until all appeals are exhausted. Applying the Arvind Patel guidelines, the court found the applicant was a first offender, the offence involved no personal violence, his appeal was not frivolous and raised arguable points, and he had complied with earlier bail terms without absconding. Bail pending appeal was granted on conditions.

Facts

The applicant was a branch operations manager at Barclays Bank, Masindi. He was charged with others, some of whom were acquitted, with causing financial loss, embezzlement and conspiracy to defraud, it being alleged they made fictitious deposits causing over six hundred million shillings to disappear from the bank. He was convicted as charged and sentenced to eight years' imprisonment, ordered to compensate the bank shs. 335,000,000/=, barred from working in a banking institution for ten years after his prison term, and had his assets restricted for compensation. The Court of Appeal upheld both conviction and sentence but ordered that the bar from working in a financial institution run for ten years from the date of his conviction on 25th October 2011. He lodged a further appeal to the Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2019) and applied for bail pending that appeal, relying on his clean record, fixed abode, family responsibilities, substantial sureties used in the lower courts, prior compliance with bail, and arguable grounds of appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for the grant of bail pending appeal.

Orders

  • Application for bail pending appeal granted.
  • The applicant shall deposit in this Court as cash bail shs. 10,000,000/= less the shs. 5,000,000/= deposited in the Court of Appeal.
  • The applicant shall present three sureties, each binding himself or herself in the sum of shs. 100,000,000/= (not cash).
  • The applicant shall deposit his passport with the Registrar of this Court and shall not apply for any new passport until final disposal of the appeal or further order.
  • The applicant shall report to the Registrar of this Court on the last working day of each month, beginning 31st December 2019, until the disposal of the appeal.
  • Breach of any of these conditions shall render the bail liable to automatic cancellation.

Key headnotes

Criminal Procedure — Bail — Scope of the right under Article 23(6)(a)
The right to bail under Article 23(6)(a) of the Constitution is limited to the right to apply for bail; the grant of bail is at the discretion of the court depending on the circumstances of each case.
Criminal Procedure — Presumption of innocence after conviction
Even after conviction, the constitutional presumption of innocence is not extinguished until all appellate levels have been exhausted.
Bail Pending Appeal — Stringent application of conditions to a convicted applicant
Because a convicted applicant has an incentive to abscond, the conditions for bail pending appeal are applied more stringently, and a mere assertion that the applicant will not abscond, even supported by sureties, is not sufficient ground to release a convicted person on bail.
Bail Pending Appeal — Arvind Patel guidelines
In deciding bail pending appeal the court is guided by the Arvind Patel factors — the character of the applicant, 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 in determining the appeal, and compliance with earlier bail conditions — and it is not necessary that all the conditions be present, a combination of two or more being sufficient.

Legislation cited (10)

  • Constitution of Uganda Article 22
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 126(2)(e)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 23(6)(a)
  • Supreme Court Rules r.41(1) & (2)
  • Supreme Court Rules r.6(2)(a)
  • Trial on Indictment Act Cap 23 s.132(4)
  • Criminal Procedure Code Act s.40(2)
  • Anti-Corruption Act 2009 s.20(1)
  • Anti-Corruption Act 2009 s.19(b)
  • Penal Code Act Cap 120 s.309

Cases cited (4)

  • Arvind Patel v Uganda (Criminal Application No. 1 of 2003)
  • David Chandi Jamwa v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application No. 9 of 2018)
  • Kyeyune Mitala Julius v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application No. 4 of 2017)
  • Hato Kajubi Godfrey v Uganda (Miscellaneous 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.