Alenyo Marks v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 5 of 2015)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

On an application for bail pending appeal under section 40 of the Criminal Procedure Code Act, Mwondha JSC held that substantial delay in hearing the applicant's appeal — almost 15 years across several courts — had already occurred and was likely to continue, infringing the right to a fair and speedy hearing under Article 28(1) of the Constitution. Applying the considerations in Arvind Patel v Uganda, the court found the applicant was a first offender with good prison conduct, his appeal was not frivolous, and he had produced substantial sureties. The court granted bail pending the hearing and determination of the appeal on stated conditions.

Outcome

Bail granted pending the hearing and determination of the appeal, subject to conditions.

Facts

The applicant, Alenyo Marks (the third accused), was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. Following the Susan Kigula decision in 2009, his matter was returned to the High Court for mitigation, and on 25 October 2010 the High Court reduced the sentence to 20 years' imprisonment, the conviction remaining. He appealed to the Court of Appeal, which on 15 January 2015 upheld the conviction and enhanced the sentence to 27 years. He then appealed to the Supreme Court against both conviction and sentence in Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2015. The Supreme Court hearing fixed for 26 May 2015 was stayed indefinitely pending disposal of co-accused A2's appeal in the Court of Appeal. The applicant, a 46-year-old first offender said to suffer from chronic illness and to have spent close to fifteen years in custody across successive proceedings, applied for bail pending the determination of his appeal.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant should be granted bail pending the hearing and determination of his appeal against conviction and sentence in the Supreme Court.
2. Whether the substantial delay in the hearing of the appeal and the applicant's personal circumstances warranted the grant of bail pending appeal.

Orders

• Application granted; applicant released on bail pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.
• Applicant to deposit cash bail of Shs 3,000,000.
• First surety to deposit a certified copy of a certificate of title and surety 3 to deposit a certified copy of a sale agreement of a permanent place of abode with the Registrar of the Supreme Court; surety 2 to deposit the official identity card of the school where he teaches.
• Conditions to run from 2 March 2016 until the appeal finally takes off or until further orders of the court.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (7)

• Criminal Procedure Code Act Cap 116 s.40(2)
• Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules r.6(2)
• Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules r.42(1)
• Trial on Indictment Act Cap 23 s.52(4)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.28(1)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.28(3)(d)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.126(2)(e)

Cases cited (5)

• Arvind Patel v Uganda (Criminal Application No. 1 of 2003)
• Akbarali Juma Kanji case [1946] 22 (1) KLR 17
• Miralf v Republic [1972] EA 47
• Chimambhi v Republic NO. 2 [1971] EA 343
• the Susan Kigula case decision in 2009

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Katamba v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 190 of 2016)

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