Wakilii

Muhanguzi Kashaka v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application 18 of 2019)

Supreme Court · [2020] UGSC 62 · 2020 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for bail pending a second criminal appeal to the Supreme Court.
Decision
Application for bail pending appeal declined; the appeal to be fixed for hearing.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 2 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 applicant, convicted of causing financial loss and sentenced to ten years, sought bail pending a second appeal. The Court held that on conviction the presumption of innocence is rebutted, so an applicant for bail pending appeal must prove exceptional and unusual circumstances, and the threshold is higher still on a second appeal than on a first. Good character, advanced age, first-offender status and substantial sureties recede before the gravity of the offence and the likelihood of success. The gravity of an offence is not defined solely by violence; serious financial loss may be grave. With no record of proceedings and no prima facie arguable ground, the application was refused and the appeal ordered fixed for hearing.

Facts

The applicant was Permanent Secretary and head of the Procurement and Disposal Entity of the Ministry of Local Government. In 2010 Government decided to supply every Local Council Chairperson at village and parish level with a bicycle, and the Ministry, through the contracts committee, organised procurement of 70,000 bicycles. The contract was awarded to Amman Industrial Tools and Equipment Limited (AITEL) and signed by the applicant as the Ministry's representative. An advance payment of USD 1,719,454.58 was made to AITEL, but the bicycles were never supplied. The applicant was charged with causing financial loss under section 20(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act 2009, convicted, sentenced to ten years and ten days' imprisonment, disqualified from holding public office for ten years, and ordered to pay one-sixth of the lost sum as compensation. His appeal to the Court of Appeal was unsuccessful, and he lodged a further appeal to the Supreme Court, from which this bail application arose.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant established exceptional and unusual circumstances warranting release on bail pending the determination of his second appeal to the Supreme Court.

Orders

  • Application for bail pending appeal declined.
  • The Registrar directed to cause-list the appeal in the next convenient Criminal Session.

Key headnotes

Bail Pending Appeal — Exceptional and Unusual Circumstances
An applicant for bail pending appeal must establish exceptional and unusual circumstances, because on conviction the legal status of the offender changes and the presumption of innocence is rebutted, subjecting the applicant to a more stringent test than one not yet convicted.
Bail Pending Appeal — Second Appeal Threshold
The threshold of exceptional and unusual circumstances required for bail is higher on a second appeal than on a first appeal, and release pending a second appeal should be the exception rather than the norm.
Bail Pending Appeal — Character, Age and Sureties
Good character, advanced age, first-offender status, being a sole breadwinner and the availability of substantial sureties are not in themselves exceptional or unusual circumstances justifying the grant of bail pending appeal.
Bail Pending Appeal — Gravity of Offence
The gravity of an offence is not defined exclusively by whether it involved personal violence; an offence causing serious financial loss to the State may be grave notwithstanding the absence of violence.
Bail Pending Appeal — Prospects of Success
Where an applicant fails to supply the record of proceedings and discloses no prima facie arguable ground of appeal, the court cannot find a reasonable likelihood of success sufficient to warrant release pending appeal.
Bail Pending Appeal — Delay in Determination
Delay in the determination of an appeal constitutes an exceptional circumstance only where the delay is itself unusual and there is a real risk that the sentence, or a substantial portion of it, will be served before the appeal is heard.

Legislation cited (11)

  • Supreme Court Rules r.6(2)(a)
  • Supreme Court Rules r.42
  • Supreme Court Rules r.43
  • Criminal Procedure Code Act s.40(2)
  • Anti-Corruption Act 2009 s.20(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.28(3)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.132(2)
  • Judicature Act s.5
  • Trial on Indictment Act s.14
  • Trial on Indictment Act s.15
  • PPDA Act s.92

Cases cited (9)

  • Arvind Patel v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of 2003)
  • David Chandi Jamwa v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application No. 9 of 2018)
  • Lt. Col John Kaye v Attorney General (Constitutional Application No. 25 of 2012)
  • Chimambhai v R (No. 2) [1971] 1 EA 343
  • Somo v Republic [1972] EA 476
  • Girdhar Dhanji Masrani v R [1960] 1 EA 320
  • Dominic Karanja v Republic (1988) KLR 612
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Mulindwa James v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 2014)
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.