Wakilii

Mellan Marere v Uganda [2023] UGSC 24

Supreme Court · 2023 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for bail pending appeal in the Supreme Court, arising out of a criminal appeal against a murder conviction.
Decision
Application for bail pending appeal dismissed as premature.

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 applicant, a 77-year-old murder convict in poor health, sought bail pending her Supreme Court appeal. The Court held that 'determination' of an appeal means the court's decision, and that where an appeal has already been heard and only judgment is pending, the right to bail pending appeal is extinguished; the application was effectively one for bail pending judgment, for which there is no legal provision. The asserted substantial delay was found to be speculative and unsupported by evidence, since the matter had been heard and merely awaited judgment, which would be delivered soon. The application was accordingly dismissed as premature.

Facts

The applicant, a 77-year-old former district councillor, was convicted of murder under sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act and sentenced to imprisonment, the sentence later being reduced to 18 years by the Court of Appeal. She applied to the Supreme Court for bail pending her appeal against conviction and sentence, relying on her status as a first offender, her advanced age, and grave ill-health including HIV, asthmatic conditions, cardiac problems and the amputation of both legs, requiring specialised medical care unavailable in prison. She offered two sureties and a fixed place of abode. The respondent opposed the application, noting that the appeal had already been argued and admitted in a September 2021 session and merely awaited judgment, that earlier similar applications had been dismissed, and that what was sought was effectively bail pending judgment, for which there is no provision. Delivery of judgment had been delayed by the death of a panel member, with a reconstituted panel introduced on 2 May 2023.

Issues

  1. Whether an applicant is entitled to bail pending appeal where the appeal has already been heard and only delivery of judgment remains.
  2. Whether the applicant established substantial delay in the determination of her appeal sufficient to justify bail pending appeal.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.

Key headnotes

Criminal Procedure — Bail Pending Appeal — Meaning of 'Determination' of an Appeal
Bail pending appeal may be granted only during the pendency of the determination of an appeal; where an appeal has already been heard and only delivery of judgment remains, the right to bail pending appeal is extinguished and an application at that stage is, in substance, an application for bail pending judgment, for which no legal provision exists.
Criminal Procedure — Bail Pending Appeal — Substantial Delay Must Be Factual Not Speculative
Substantial delay in the determination of an appeal can justify bail pending appeal only where it is established as factual and not speculative; delay must be assessed against the real risk that the sentence or a considerable portion of it will be served before the appeal is heard, and a bare assertion of delay where the matter has been heard and merely awaits judgment is insufficient.
Criminal Procedure — Bail Pending Appeal — Capital Offences — Exceptional Circumstances
A person convicted of a capital offence such as murder must, when seeking bail pending appeal, prove the exceptional circumstances set out in section 15 of the Trial on Indictment Act; the duty to prove such circumstances does not cease upon conviction.
Criminal Procedure — Presumption of Innocence — Effect of Conviction
The presumption of innocence ends once an accused person is found guilty by an impartial court; thereafter the interests of justice require the court to weigh not only the rights of the convicted person but also the interests of the victim and of society as a whole.

Legislation cited (8)

  • Penal Code Act s.188
  • Penal Code Act s.189
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.6(2)(a)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.42
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.43
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules Directions r.6(2)(a)
  • Criminal Procedure Code Act Cap 116 s.40(2)
  • Trial on Indictment Act Cap 23 s.15

Cases cited (5)

  • Arvind Patel v Uganda (Criminal Application No. 1 of 2003)
  • Busiku Thomas v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2011)
  • Kairu Arajab and Kange Patrick v Uganda (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.