Wakilii

Adimola v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 9 of 1992)

High Court · [1992] UGHC 79 · 1992 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for restoration of bail following committal to High Court for trial on treason charge
Decision
Applicant released on bail subject to specified conditions pending trial on treason charge.

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains 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 High Court held that an accused charged with treason aged 66 satisfied the exceptional circumstances requirement of advanced age under section 14A(2)(d) of the Trial on Indictments Decree. The court further held that the applicant was not likely to abscond given his previous compliance with bail conditions, fixed place of abode, sound sureties, clean record, and no evidence of witness interference. Bail was granted subject to conditions including cash bail, sureties, passport deposit, reporting requirements, and travel restrictions.

Outcome

Applicant released on bail subject to specified conditions pending trial on treason charge.

Facts

The applicant, Andrew Adimola, aged 66, was charged with treason together with four co-accused. The offence was alleged to have been committed between 1988 and 1991 in Gulu and Kampala Districts. The applicant had been on bail since June 1991. On 17 January 1992, the applicant was committed for trial to the High Court. By virtue of section 163(4) of the Magistrates Courts Act, his bail lapsed upon committal. The applicant applied for restoration of bail on the ground of advanced age, claiming he was 66 years old and in ill health. The applicant had previously complied with all bail conditions and there were no other charges pending against him. He had a permanent home at Anaka in Gulu and a town house at Ntinda, Kampala. Three sureties were offered, including his eldest daughter, Miss Beatrice Adimola. The state opposed the application on grounds that circumstances had changed post-committal, the applicant faced a capital offence and might abscond, and there was a risk of witness interference.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant satisfied the requirements for exceptional circumstances under section 14A of the Trial on Indictments Decree to justify grant of bail.
  2. Whether the applicant was likely to abscond if released on bail.

Orders

  • Application for bail granted.
  • Applicant to deposit cash bail of Shs. 200,000 with the court.
  • Two sureties required, each to sign a bond of Shs. 25,000,000 (not cash). Miss Beatrice Adimola approved as one surety; second surety to be satisfied by the Registrar.
  • Applicant's passport to be deposited with the court and not to be released until determination of the case without a court order.
  • Applicant not to leave the jurisdiction of the court without a formal court order.
  • Applicant to report to the Registrar every two weeks starting from 24 February 1992 until disposal of the case or until further order of the court.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Law & Procedure — Bail — Exceptional Circumstances — Advanced Age
Under section 14A(2)(d) of the Trial on Indictments Decree as amended by Statute 5 of 1985, advanced age constitutes an exceptional circumstance justifying grant of bail to an accused charged with a capital offence. An age of 66 years satisfies the requirement of advanced age for purposes of a bail application.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Bail — Likelihood of Absconding — Assessment Factors
In assessing whether an accused is likely to abscond if released on bail, the court must consider the statutory factors in section 14A(3) of the Trial on Indictments Decree: whether the accused has a fixed abode within the jurisdiction; whether the accused has sound sureties willing to undertake compliance with bail conditions; whether the accused has previously failed to comply with bail conditions; and whether there are other charges pending against the accused.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Bail — Previous Compliance with Bail Conditions
Where an accused has previously been released on bail and complied with all bail conditions without absconding, despite knowledge of the seriousness of the charge and potential death penalty, this demonstrates that the accused is not likely to abscond if granted bail again.
Evidence — Bail Applications — Witness Interference — Burden of Proof
An allegation by the prosecution that an accused will interfere with witnesses if released on bail must be supported by evidence. In the absence of evidence, such an allegation is mere speculation and cannot be acted upon by the court. Under Rule 2 of the Criminal Procedure (Applications) Rules, Statutory Instrument No. 41-1, applications in criminal cases requiring evidence must be supported by affidavit, and this requirement applies equally to the respondent.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Bail — Fixed Place of Abode — Statutory Requirement
The court cannot ignore the statutory requirement that an accused has a fixed place of abode within the jurisdiction on mere allegations that people with fixed places of abode have been known to abscond. Each case must be considered on its own facts, and in the absence of evidence disputing the applicant's claim of a fixed abode, the requirement is satisfied.
Human Rights — Presumption of Innocence — Bail Pending Trial
Every accused person is presumed innocent until proved guilty. The law allows bail because if the accused is found innocent at the end of trial, there is no remedy for years spent in prison on remand. The overriding consideration when granting bail is whether it is probable that the accused will appear to take trial, balancing the interest of society to see justice done against the rights of the accused person.

Legislation cited (7)

  • Trial on Indictments Decree s.14A
  • Trial on Indictments Decree s.14A(2)(d)
  • Trial on Indictments Decree s.14A(3)
  • Statute 5 of 1985
  • Magistrates Courts Act s.163(4)
  • Courts (Rules) Act Cap 41
  • Criminal Procedure (Applications) Rules Statutory Instrument No. 41-1 Rule 2

Cases cited (3)

  • Panju Vs Uganda
  • Misc. App. No. 232/86
  • Fransco Lwanga Vs Uganda, Misc. App. No. 307/87

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Adimola v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 9 of 1992) [1992] UGHC 79 (11 February 1992)
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.