Wakilii

Ali Fadhul v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 1 of 1991)

High Court · [1992] UGHC 70 · 1992 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Bail application by accused person charged with murder following Supreme Court order for retrial
Decision
Applicant remanded in custody pending retrial for murder as ordered by Supreme Court

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 court dismissed the bail application, holding that the 480-day remand period under section 14B(a) of the Trial on Indictments Decree runs from the date the Supreme Court ordered the retrial, not from the original arrest date. The applicant had been in custody for only 468 days since the retrial order, falling short of the statutory threshold. The court further held that the gravity of the murder charge and the applicant's detailed knowledge of the evidence against him made it inappropriate to grant bail, as the risk of absconding was high and release would not be in the interest of justice.

Outcome

Applicant remanded in custody pending retrial for murder as ordered by Supreme Court

Facts

The applicant Ali Fadhul was arrested on 10 September 1986 and charged with murder contrary to section 183 of the Penal Code. He was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death in High Court Criminal Session No. 35 of 1982. On appeal, the Supreme Court on 24 December 1990 allowed his appeal in Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 1969, set aside the death sentence, and ordered a retrial. The Supreme Court directed that the applicant be remanded in custody pending retrial. The applicant remained on remand following the Supreme Court order. By the date of the bail application hearing, the applicant had been in custody for 468 days since the Supreme Court's retrial order, though over five years since his original arrest. The applicant applied for bail on grounds that he had been on remand for over 480 days, had a permanent home, had never jumped bail, and had no other pending charges. He presented two sureties of substance. The state opposed the application, arguing that the applicant posed a flight risk given the gravity of the charge and his detailed knowledge of the evidence, and that delay in the retrial was attributable to the judiciary, not the prosecution.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant was entitled to bail under section 14B(a) of the Trial on Indictments Decree as amended, having been on remand for over 480 days.
  2. Whether the statutory period of 480 days remand should be calculated from the date of the original arrest or from the date the Supreme Court ordered a retrial.
  3. Whether it was in the interest of justice to release the applicant on bail pending retrial, considering the gravity of the charge and the applicant's knowledge of the evidence against him.

Orders

  • Application for bail dismissed.
  • Registrar (Crime) directed to make every effort within reasonable time to have the case fixed for hearing at the next High Court Session in Mbarara.
  • Accused to remain in custody pending retrial.

Rules and key headnotes

Bail — Calculation of Remand Period Following Appellate Court Order for Retrial
Where an accused person has been tried, convicted, and sentenced, and an appellate court sets aside the conviction and orders a retrial, the statutory period of remand for purposes of section 14B(a) of the Trial on Indictments Decree runs afresh from the date of the appellate court's order, not from the date of the original arrest or commencement of the first trial.
Trial on Indictments Decree — Section 14B(a) — Meaning of 'Before Commencement of His Trial'
The phrase 'before commencement of his trial' in section 14B(a) of the Trial on Indictments Decree, in the context of an appellate order for retrial, refers to the period before commencement of the retrial, not the original trial that was set aside.
Bail — Discretion — Factors Relevant to Refusal
In considering whether to grant bail, the court must consider whether the accused will appear for trial, the gravity of the offence, and the circumstances of each case. Where an accused faces a capital charge and has detailed knowledge of all the evidence and witnesses against him from a previous trial, the risk of absconding may be sufficiently high that release on bail would not be in the interest of justice, notwithstanding the availability of substantial sureties.

Legislation cited (3)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ali Fadhul v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 1 of 1991) [1992] UGHC 70 (14 April 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.