Wakilii

Mugerwa & Another v Uganda (URA) (Miscellaneous Application 15 of 2021)

Supreme Court · [2022] UGSC 26 · 2022 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for bail pending a second appeal to the Supreme Court arising from Criminal Appeal No. 75 of 2021
Decision
Application for bail pending appeal dismissed; applicants remain in custody pending 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

The Supreme Court (single Justice) dismissed an application for bail pending a second appeal by two former URA officers convicted of abuse of office, causing financial loss and false claims over a fraudulent VAT refund. The court reiterated that, post-conviction, an applicant is no longer shielded by the presumption of innocence, so bail pending appeal requires proof of exceptional and unusual circumstances — a threshold even higher on a second appeal. The non-violent nature of the offence did not lessen its gravity given the colossal loss caused. With the record of proceedings absent, the appeal's prospects of success could not be assessed. Though the sureties were substantial, the applicants failed to prove exceptional circumstances and bail was refused.

Facts

The two applicants were employees of the Uganda Revenue Authority in the Domestic Taxes Department at Jinja, working as supervisor and revenue officer. The prosecution alleged that between January and September 2014 they falsely and fraudulently audited, verified and approved a VAT refund claim by M/S Rising Star Commodities Limited, based on a purported export of brown sugar to a Kenyan company, causing URA a loss of UGX 6,452,116,773. They were charged with abuse of office, causing financial loss and false claims by officials under the Anti-Corruption Act 2009, totalling 27 counts. The High Court (Anti-Corruption Division) convicted them after hearing 18 prosecution witnesses, sentencing each to concurrent terms of 5, 10 and 2 years and disqualification from public office for 10 years. The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions and sentences. The applicants appealed to the Supreme Court and sought bail pending that appeal, relying on compliance with prior bail terms, fixed abodes, substantial sureties and the non-violent nature of the offences.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants established exceptional and unusual circumstances warranting the grant of bail pending the determination of their second appeal.
  2. Whether the gravity of a serious non-violent financial offence weighs against the grant of bail pending appeal.
  3. Whether, absent the record of proceedings, the court could assess the likelihood of success of the intended appeal.

Orders

  • The applicants' prayer for grant of bail pending appeal is disallowed.
  • No order as to costs.

Key headnotes

Criminal Procedure — Bail Pending Appeal — Distinct and More Stringent Conditions than Bail Pending Trial
The conditions for granting bail pending appeal differ from, and are more stringent than, those for bail pending trial; after conviction the applicant is no longer shielded by the presumption of innocence and must prove exceptional and unusual circumstances to warrant release.
Criminal Procedure — Bail Pending Appeal — Higher Threshold on a Second Appeal
The threshold of exceptional and unusual circumstances required for bail pending appeal 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.
Criminal Procedure — Bail Pending Appeal — Gravity of Offence Not Defined by Violence
The gravity of an offence for the purpose of bail pending appeal cannot be defined exclusively by reference to whether it involved personal violence; a serious financial crime causing substantial loss to a public revenue body is grave notwithstanding its non-violent character.
Criminal Procedure — Bail Pending Appeal — Likelihood of Success and the Missing Record of Proceedings
In assessing the likelihood of success of an intended appeal the court asks only whether the appeal is prima facie arguable; where the record of proceedings is not before the court the prospects of success cannot be evaluated, disadvantaging the applicant.

Legislation cited (11)

  • Constitution of Uganda art.2
  • Constitution of Uganda art.126(2)(e)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.28(3)
  • Trial on Indictments Act s.132(4)
  • Criminal Procedure Code Act s.40(2)
  • Supreme Court Rules r.6(2)
  • Supreme Court Rules r.41(1)
  • Supreme Court Rules r.41(2)
  • Anti-Corruption Act 2009 s.11(1)
  • Anti-Corruption Act 2009 s.20(1)
  • Anti-Corruption Act 2009 s.24

Cases cited (6)

  • Chimambhai v R (No.2) [1971] 1 EA 343
  • Henry Bamutura v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application No. 9 of 2019)
  • Nakiwuge Racheal Muleke v Uganda (Criminal Reference No. 12 of 2020)
  • Girdhar Dhanji Masrani v R [1960] 1 EA 320
  • Arvind Patel v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2003)
  • Somo v Republic [1972] EA 476
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.