Ddegeya v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application 16 of 2021)

Supreme Court · [2022] UGSC 10 · 2022 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 disallowed; applicant remains in custody pending determination of the appeal.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) 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 Supreme Court dismissed the application for bail pending a second appeal. The Court held that after conviction the presumption of innocence is rebutted, so the principles for bail pending trial do not apply; an applicant must instead prove exceptional and unusual circumstances, a threshold that is higher on a second appeal. A fixed abode, dependent family and absence of prior record are not exceptional. The gravity of an offence is not defined solely by violence, and the requirement of personal violence does not apply to financial crimes. The intended appeal, turning on re-evaluation of evidence, was not shown to be prima facie arguable. The applicant failed to prove exceptional circumstances.

Facts

The applicant was employed as a manager by Safeway Pharmacy (2003) Ltd. In March 2013 he was instructed to take stock and verbally reported stock worth UGX 70 million but produced no written report. A fresh stock take in May 2013 by the managing director found stock of only about UGX 4 million, with empty display boxes. A supplier, Astra Pharmacy, demanded UGX 69 million for goods supplied on credit. The applicant undertook to disprove the claim but instead disappeared with the pharmacy keys, later texting that he had left Uganda for Kuwait. Management broke in and found vital business records removed. An audit revealed UGX 69,996,453 had been embezzled, and the applicant had banked company money in a personal account. He was charged with embezzlement, forgery and uttering false documents, convicted, and sentenced to 8 years and 2 years concurrently, with an order to refund UGX 102,146,453. The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction and sentence, prompting a second appeal to the Supreme Court and this bail application.

Issues

Whether the applicant proved exceptional and unusual circumstances warranting the grant of bail pending a second appeal.
Whether the principles applicable to bail pending trial apply to an application for bail pending appeal.
Whether the non-violent nature of the offence is a factor favouring the grant of bail pending appeal in financial crimes.
Whether the intended appeal had a sufficient likelihood of success to constitute an exceptional circumstance.

Orders

The applicant's prayer for grant of bail pending appeal is disallowed.

Key headnotes

Bail — Bail Pending Appeal — Distinction from Bail Pending Trial

After conviction an offender's legal status changes and the presumption of innocence is rebutted, so the principles governing bail pending appeal are different from and more stringent than those applicable to bail pending trial.

Bail — Bail Pending Appeal — Exceptional and Unusual Circumstances

An applicant for bail pending appeal must prove exceptional and unusual circumstances, and that threshold is higher on a second appeal, where release on bail should be the exception rather than the norm.

Bail — Bail Pending Appeal — Personal Circumstances of Applicant

A fixed place of abode, a dependent wife and children, and the absence of a prior criminal record are not, individually or collectively, exceptional or unusual circumstances justifying bail pending appeal.

Bail — Bail Pending Appeal — Gravity of Offence and Financial Crimes

The gravity of an offence cannot be defined exclusively by whether it involved violence; the requirement of personal violence does not apply to corruption and corruption-related financial crimes, which constitute grave breaches of trust.

Bail — Bail Pending Appeal — Likelihood of Success of Appeal

In assessing likelihood of success the court does not delve into the merits but asks only whether the intended appeal is prima facie arguable; an appeal resting on alleged errors in the re-evaluation of evidence by a first appellate court that properly performed that duty is not shown to be arguable.

Bail — Bail Pending Appeal — Risk of Sentence Being Served Before Appeal

The possibility of substantial delay is assessed by whether there is a risk that the sentence, or a great part of it, would be served before the appeal is heard; absent such a risk, delay does not constitute an exceptional circumstance.

Legislation cited (11)

Constitution of Uganda Article 126(2)(e)
Constitution of Uganda Article 28(3)
Constitution of Uganda Article 132(2)
Criminal Procedure Code Act s.40(2)
Supreme Court Rules r.41(1)
Supreme Court Rules r.41(2)
Supreme Court Rules r.6(2)(a)
Anti-Corruption Act 2009 s.19(b)
Penal Code Act s.342
Penal Code Act s.347
Penal Code Act s.351

Cases cited (10)

Arvind Patel v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2003)
Henry Bamutura v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application No. 19 of 2019)
John Muhanguzi Kashaka v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application No. 18 of 2019)
Raghbir Singh Lamba vs. R [1958] EA 337
Segufia Danny & Anor v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application No. 5 of 2019)
Nakiwuge Racheal Muleke v Uganda (Criminal Reference No. 12 of 2020)
Chimambhai vs. R (No.2) [1971] 1 E.A 343
Girdhar Dhanji Masrani vs. R [1960] 1 E.A 320
Somo v Republic [1972] E.A. 476
Ddegeya Hassan v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application No. 9 of 2021)

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.