Wakilii

Ddegeya v Uganda (Criminal Application 9 of 2021)

Supreme Court · [2021] UGSC 19 · 2021 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to the Supreme Court for bail pending hearing and determination of a criminal appeal
Decision
Application for bail pending appeal declined; 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

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 a second appeal, the court held that a convicted applicant is no longer shielded by the presumption of innocence and must satisfy a more stringent test, pleading and proving exceptional and unusual circumstances. Good character, being a first offender and compliance with earlier bail terms recede when weighed against the seriousness of the offence and the likelihood of success. Without the record of proceedings the court could not gauge the appeal's prospects, and the applicant pleaded none of the exceptional circumstances defined in section 15(3) of the Trial on Indictment Act. The application was accordingly declined.

Facts

The applicant was convicted by the High Court on two counts of embezzlement contrary to section 96(b) of the Anti-Corruption Act 2009, three counts of forgery and three counts of uttering false documents under the Penal Code Act, arising from a financial loss of UGX 102,146,453 to his employer. He was sentenced to 8 years' imprisonment on counts 1 and 2 and 2 years on the remaining counts, to run concurrently, with an order to refund the sum. The Court of Appeal confirmed the conviction, sentence and compensation order. The applicant lodged a notice and memorandum of appeal in the Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 2021) and applied for bail pending that appeal, relying on his being a first offender, a non-violent offence, a fixed abode, substantial sureties, prior compliance with bail terms, and an appeal said to have prospects of success. He did not attach the record of proceedings.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant, having been convicted by the High Court and the Court of Appeal, should be granted bail pending the determination of his second appeal.
  2. Whether the applicant pleaded and proved exceptional and unusual circumstances warranting bail pending appeal.
  3. Whether the court could assess the possibility of success of the appeal in the absence of the record of proceedings.

Orders

  • Application for bail pending appeal declined.

Key headnotes

Bail Pending Appeal — Discretion of the Court
The grant of bail, whether pending trial or pending appeal, lies in the discretion of the court, which must be exercised judiciously with each case determined on its own merits.
Bail Pending Appeal — Rebuttal of the Presumption of Innocence
Once an applicant has been convicted, the presumption of innocence under Article 28(3) of the Constitution is rebutted, so an applicant for bail pending appeal must satisfy a more stringent test than one awaiting trial.
Bail Pending Appeal — Exceptional and Unusual Circumstances
An applicant for bail pending appeal must plead and prove exceptional and unusual circumstances, as defined in section 15(3) of the Trial on Indictment Act, namely grave illness, a certificate of no objection from the Director of Public Prosecutions, or infancy or advanced age.
Bail Pending Appeal — Assessment of Prospects of Success — Record of Proceedings
The court cannot assess the possibility of success of an appeal for the purpose of granting bail pending appeal in the absence of the relevant record of proceedings, the judgment appealed from and the memorandum of appeal.
Bail Pending Appeal — Weight of Good Character and First-Offender Status
Good character, being a first offender, being a breadwinner and offering sound sureties are not in themselves exceptional, and recede into the background when weighed against the seriousness of the offence and the likelihood of the appeal succeeding.

Legislation cited (11)

  • Constitution of Uganda Article 23(6)(a)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 28(3)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 126(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 132(2)
  • Judicature Act Cap 13 s.5
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions rule 6(2)(a)
  • Trial on Indictment Act Cap 23 s.15(3)
  • Anti-Corruption Act 2009 s.96(b)
  • Penal Code Act s.342
  • Penal Code Act s.347
  • Penal Code Act s.351

Cases cited (7)

  • Arvind Patel v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2003)
  • Henry Bamutura Vs. Uganda, Supreme Court Miscellaneous Application
  • Nakiwuge Racheal Muleke v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Reference No. 12 of 2020)
  • John Kashaka Muhanguzi v Uganda (Supreme Court Miscellaneous Application No. 18 of 2019)
  • Segujja Danny & Anor v Uganda (Supreme Court Miscellaneous Application No. 5 of 2019)
  • Ochepa Godfrey v Uganda (Supreme Court Miscellaneous Application No. 7 of 2020)
  • Kyeyune Mitala Julius v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Application No. 9 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.