Bireete v Uganda [2016] UGSC 35

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.

Holding

On an application for bail pending a second appeal, the court held that article 23(b)(a) of the Constitution, under which the application was brought, was inapplicable; the correct provision was section 40(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Invoking article 126, the court declined to visit counsel's professional error on the applicant and proceeded to apply the conditions for bail pending appeal stated in Arvind Patel v Uganda. It found the appeal's hearing date uncertain, no compelling evidence the remaining appeal would fail, no risk of the applicant absconding given her conduct on prior bail, and substantial approved sureties. The application succeeded and bail was granted on stringent conditions.

Outcome

Application for bail pending appeal granted; applicant released on bail on stringent conditions pending the hearing of her appeal

Facts

The applicant was convicted by the Anti-Corruption Court of abuse of office and embezzlement under the Anti-Corruption Act 2009, sentenced to imprisonment and ordered to refund USD 70,000. On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed her appeal against the abuse of office conviction and sentence but upheld her conviction and sentence for embezzlement. She lodged a second appeal to the Supreme Court and applied for bail pending its disposal. She had been granted bail and complied with the conditions in the courts below. She is a single mother of two infant sons and guardian of an orphaned child. She had applied for a copy of the proceedings, which the Court of Appeal had not yet supplied, raising a risk of delay in hearing the appeal. She presented four sureties, including a cousin who executed powers of attorney over her land title.

Issues

1. Whether article 23(b)(a) of the Constitution was the correct provision under which to bring an application for bail pending appeal.
2. Whether counsel's error in citing the wrong provision should defeat the application or be overlooked under article 126 of the Constitution.
3. Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for the grant of bail pending the determination of her appeal.

Orders

• The application succeeds and the applicant is granted bail.
• The applicant is to be released on executing a bail bond of Shs. 700 million (not cash).
• The applicant is to deposit the original land title in the name of her cousin sister, the fourth surety (Mengo, Kyadondo, Block 210 Plot 1920).
• Each of the four sureties is to execute a bond of Shs. 250 million (not cash).
• The securities deposited in the trial court and the Court of Appeal are not to be released until the applicant's appeal is disposed of.
• The applicant is 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 (7)

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

Cases cited (2)

• Arvind Patel Vs Uganda Misc Application No. 2003
• Alenyo Marks Vs Uganda (Supra), Application No. OS of 2015

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