David Chandi Jamwa v. Uganda (Crim. Appl. No. 20 Of 2011) (Crim. Appl. No. 20 of 2011)

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

The applicant, convicted of causing financial loss under the Anti-Corruption Act and sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment, sought bail pending appeal. Applying the conditions in Arvind Patel v Uganda, the court found that not all conditions need be present and a combination may suffice. The court was satisfied the applicant was a first offender of good character who had complied with prior bail terms, the offence involved no personal violence, the sureties were substantial and reliable, and the appeal hearing date was uncertain. Bail was granted on stringent conditions including cash deposits, bonds, sureties, deposit of a land title, surrender of passport and regular reporting.

Outcome

Bail granted pending the hearing and determination of the appeal, on stringent conditions

Facts

The applicant was tried in the Anti-Corruption Court at Kampala and convicted of causing financial loss contrary to section 20 of the Anti-Corruption Act 2009, for which he was sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment. He was acquitted on a first count of abuse of office, against which the respondent had cross-appealed. The applicant filed an appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 2011) and applied for bail pending its determination. He argued the trial judge devoted nine pages to the count on which he was acquitted but only half a page to the count of causing financial loss, suggesting his appeal had high chances of success. He had complied with bail conditions during his High Court trial, the offence involved no personal violence, and he presented five sureties plus his wife's offer to deposit a land title valued at shs 400 million. The respondent opposed bail, contending the appeal had no chance of success and that risk of absconding was higher after conviction.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for grant of bail pending the hearing and determination of his criminal appeal.

Orders

• Application for bail pending appeal granted.
• Cash bail of shs 10 million deposited in the trial Court to be treated as deposit in this Court, not released until the appeal is disposed of.
• Applicant to execute a further non-cash bond of shs 500 million with 6 sureties bound in the same amount.
• Applicant to deposit passport No. B0704124 with the Registrar.
• Applicant's wife Catherine Bulinda Jamwa to be the sixth surety and deposit the original land title at Munyonyo (Kyadondo Block 255 plot 1334) with the Registrar.
• The first five persons presented as sureties are approved.
• Applicant to report to the Registrar on the last working day of every month from 29th July 2011 for extension of bail until the appeal is disposed of.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (3)

• Trial on Indictment Act (Cap 23) s.132(4)
• Criminal Procedure Code Act (Cap 116) s.40(2)
• Anti-Corruption Act 2009 s.20

Cases cited (6)

• Arvind Patel v Uganda (Criminal Application No. 1 of 2003)
• Teddy Ssezi Cheeye v Uganda (Criminal Application No. 31 of 2009)
• Frank Iga v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application No. 099 of 2009)
• Kifamunte Henry Vs Uganda Application N0. 10/197
• Nalukenge Mildred v Uganda (Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 56 of 2008)
• Angelo Muwanga v Uganda (Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 41 of 2008)

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