Wakilii

Ali Fadhul v Uganda (Misc. Criminal Application No. 1 of 1991; Original Criminal Case No. 279 88)

High Court · [1992] UGHC 127 · 1992 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for bail following Supreme Court order for retrial after quashing conviction and death sentence
Decision
Accused to remain remanded in custody pending retrial

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

Application for bail dismissed as premature. The statutory 480-day remand period under s.14B(a) Trial on Indictments Decree begins from the date the Supreme Court ordered retrial, not from initial arrest. Where Supreme Court sets aside conviction and orders retrial, the remand period runs afresh from that order. At the time of this application, only 468 days had elapsed since the retrial order, falling 12 days short of the statutory threshold. Additionally, given the gravity of the murder charge and the accused's knowledge of all evidence and witnesses from the prior trial, releasing him on bail would create high risk of absconding and would not be in the interest of justice.

Outcome

Accused to remain remanded in custody pending retrial

Facts

Ali Fadhul was arrested on 10 September 1986 and charged with murder contrary to s.183 Penal Code. He was tried in High Court Criminal Session No. 35/82, convicted, and sentenced to death. On appeal, the Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1989) allowed the appeal on 24 December 1990, set aside the conviction and death sentence, and ordered a retrial with the accused to be remanded in custody. The Supreme Court judgment stated the retrial should occur as soon as practicable. From the date of the Supreme Court order (24/12/90) to the hearing of this bail application, 468 days had elapsed. The applicant sought bail on grounds he had been on remand for over 480 days (calculated from initial arrest). He presented two sureties: Clement George Adama (Principal Finance Officer, Ministry of Finance) and Philip Jathum Chonbe (accountant, brother-in-law of accused). Both prosecution and defence stated they were ready to proceed with the retrial but the case had not yet been fixed for hearing.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under s.14B(a) of the Trial on Indictments Decree after a retrial has been ordered by the Supreme Court.
  2. Whether the period of remand exceeding 480 days begins from the date of first arrest or from the date the Supreme Court ordered a retrial.
  3. Whether it is in the interest of justice to release on bail an accused person who knows all the evidence and witnesses against him in a murder case awaiting retrial.

Orders

  • Application for bail dismissed.
  • Registrar (Crime) directed to fix the case for hearing at the next High Court Session in Mbarara within reasonable time.

Rules and key headnotes

Bail — Calculation of Remand Period — Retrial Ordered on Appeal
Where the Supreme Court quashes a conviction and orders a retrial, the period of remand for purposes of s.14B(a) Trial on Indictments Decree begins to run afresh from the date of the Supreme Court order directing retrial, not from the date of initial arrest or first remand. The words 'before commencement of his trial' in s.14B cannot be interpreted to refer to the first trial that has been set aside.
Bail — Application Under s.14B(a) — Premature Application
An application for mandatory release on bail under s.14B(a) Trial on Indictments Decree is premature where it is brought before the expiration of the statutory 480-day remand period, even where the accused has been in custody for a longer period calculated from a different starting point.
Bail — Discretionary Considerations — Gravity of Offence and Risk of Absconding
In determining 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 on its own facts. Where an accused person has been tried for murder, convicted, and sentenced to death, and now awaits retrial knowing in minute detail all the evidence and witnesses against him, the temptation to abscond is high and it may not be in the interest of justice to release him on bail, notwithstanding that substantial sureties are offered.
Bail — Delay in Prosecution — Right to Expeditious Trial
An accused person is entitled to an expeditious trial and should not be left to languish on remand indefinitely. Where delay in fixing a case for retrial is attributable to the judiciary's logistic problems rather than to either prosecution or defence, the court may direct the Registrar to ensure the case is fixed for hearing within reasonable time, while maintaining the status quo as to the accused's custody where neither party is truly to blame for the delay.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (3)

  • Original Criminal Case No. 279/88 (Chief Magistrate's Court Buganda Road)
  • High Court Criminal Session No. 35/82
  • Ali Fadhul v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1989)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ali Fadhul v Uganda (Misc. Criminal Application No. 1 of 1991; Original Criminal Case No. 279_88) [1992] UGHC 127 (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.