Wakilii

Marere v Uganda [2023] UGSC 13

Supreme Court · 2023 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to the Supreme Court for bail pending appeal, arising out of Criminal Appeal No. 026 of 2019
Decision
Application for bail pending appeal dismissed; the applicant remains in custody awaiting delivery of judgment in her 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 court dismissed the application. Bail pending appeal under Rule 6(2)(a) of the Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions is available only during the pendency of the determination of an appeal. As the appeal had already been heard and merely awaited judgment, the matter was effectively an application for bail pending judgment, for which there is no legal provision, and granting it would create an undesirable new precedent. The asserted ground of substantial delay was speculative and unsupported by evidence, particularly as judgment was imminent following reconstitution of the panel. The applicant's ill health alone did not justify creating that precedent.

Facts

The applicant, a 77-year-old former district councilor of Kanungu District, was convicted of murder and sentenced to 29 years and 10 months' imprisonment, a sentence the Court of Appeal reduced to 18 years. She appealed to the Supreme Court and applied for bail pending appeal, relying on her status as a first offender, prior compliance with High Court bail conditions, the availability of substantial sureties, a fixed place of abode, and serious ill health including HIV, chronic bronchitis with asthmatic components, cardiac problems and amputation of both legs. The respondent showed that the main appeal had already been heard, with submissions admitted in a 2021 session, and merely awaited delivery of judgment, which had been delayed by the death of a panel justice. A reconstituted panel had since been introduced to the parties, indicating judgment was imminent.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail pending appeal where the appeal has already been heard and merely awaits delivery of judgment.
  2. Whether substantial delay in the determination of the appeal was established so as to justify the grant of bail pending appeal.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.

Key headnotes

Criminal Procedure — Bail Pending Appeal — Availability where appeal already heard
Bail pending appeal under Rule 6(2)(a) of the Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions is available only during the pendency of the determination of the appeal; once the appeal has been heard and only awaits delivery of judgment, there is no right or procedure for bail pending judgment.
Criminal Procedure — Bail Pending Appeal — Substantial delay as a ground
Substantial delay relied upon as a ground for bail pending appeal must be factual and not speculative, and is assessed by whether there is a real risk that the sentence or a considerable portion of it will have been served before the appeal is heard.
Criminal Procedure — Bail Pending Appeal — Capital offences — Exceptional circumstances
A person convicted of a capital offence such as murder who seeks bail pending appeal must prove the exceptional circumstances set out in section 15 of the Trial on Indictment Act; conviction does not relieve the applicant of that duty.
Criminal Procedure — Bail — Presumption of innocence after conviction
The presumption of innocence ends once an accused is found guilty by an impartial court; from that point the court must weigh not only the rights of the convicted person but also the interests of the victim and of society.

Legislation cited (7)

  • Penal Code Act s.188
  • Penal Code Act s.189
  • Criminal Procedure Code Act s.40(2)
  • Trial on Indictment Act s.15
  • Trial on Indictment Act s.14
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.6(2)(a)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules r.6(2)(a)

Cases cited (5)

  • Arvind Patel v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Application No. 1 of 2003)
  • Busiku Thomas v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2011)
  • Kairu Arajab and Kange Patrick v Uganda (Court of Appeal Miscellaneous Application No. 34 of 2014)
  • Henry Bamutura v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application No. 19 of 2019)
  • Somo v Republic [1972] E.A 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.