Bireete Sarah v Uganda (Criminal Application 4 of 2016)

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, the court held that article 23(b)(a) of the Constitution, under which the motion was brought, does not provide for bail pending appeal; the correct provision is section 40(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code Act. Invoking article 126 of the Constitution, the court declined to visit counsel's error on the applicant and proceeded to consider the merits. It found the appeal hearing date uncertain, no compelling evidence that the applicant would abscond given her good conduct on bail in the courts below, and that her sureties were substantial. The application succeeded and bail was granted on conditions.

Outcome

Bail pending appeal granted on conditions, pending the hearing and disposal of the applicant's appeal

Facts

The applicant was convicted by the Anti-Corruption Court of abuse of office and embezzlement, sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment on each count, and ordered to refund USD 70,000. On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed her appeal against conviction and sentence for abuse of office but upheld the conviction and sentence for embezzlement. She lodged a further appeal to the Supreme Court and applied for bail pending its disposal. She is a single mother of two infant sons and guardian of an orphaned child, had been granted bail and complied with all bail terms in both lower courts, and had applied for the record of proceedings, which the Court of Appeal had not supplied. She presented four sureties, one of whom executed powers of attorney over land to be deposited as security.

Issues

1. Whether the application for bail pending appeal was incompetent for having been brought under article 23(b)(a) of the Constitution, which does not provide for bail pending appeal.
2. Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for the grant of bail pending the hearing and disposal of her appeal.

Orders

• Application for bail pending appeal succeeds.
• Applicant to be released on bail upon executing a bail bond of Shs. 700 million (not cash).
• Applicant to deposit the original land title comprised in Mengo, Kyadondo Block 210 Plot 1920 held by the fourth surety.
• Each of the four sureties to execute a bond of Shs. 250 million (not cash).
• Securities deposited by the applicant in the trial court and the Court of Appeal (passport and residential land title) not to be released until the appeal is disposed of.
• Applicant to report to the Registrar of the Supreme Court on the 15th working day of every month, starting 15 July 2016, to have her bail extended until the appeal is heard and disposed of.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (8)

• Constitution of Uganda article 23(b)(a)
• Constitution of Uganda article 126
• Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules Directions rule 42
• Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules Directions rule 43
• Judicature Act s.2
• Criminal Procedure Code Act s.40(2)
• Anti-Corruption Act 2009 s.1
• Anti-Corruption Act 2009 s.14(a)(iii)

Cases cited (2)

• Arvind Patel Vs Uganda Misc Application No. 2003
• Alenyo Marks v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application No. 5 of 2015)

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.

• Mubarak v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No.0042 of 2017)

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