Wakilii

Gen. David Sejusa v Uganda (HCT-00-CR-CM 15 of 2016)

High Court · [2016] UGHCCRD 497 · 2016 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for bail pending determination of civil proceedings challenging jurisdiction of General Court Martial
Decision
Applicant released on bail pending determination of civil proceedings challenging jurisdiction of General Court Martial

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

Held: The High Court has unlimited original jurisdiction under Article 139(1) of the Constitution which cannot be ousted by tribunal proceedings. Where criminal charges in the General Court Martial have been suspended by High Court order pending determination of civil proceedings challenging the applicant's status in the UPDF, and no established procedure exists for a bail application in such circumstances, the High Court may exercise its inherent powers under s.39(2) of the Judicature Act to adopt an appropriate procedure. Bail granted on constitutional grounds including the presumption of innocence under Article 28(3)(a), the right to liberty, and the bailable nature of the offences.

Outcome

Applicant released on bail pending determination of civil proceedings challenging jurisdiction of General Court Martial

Facts

The applicant, General David Sejusa, was charged with five offences before the General Court Martial (cases 002, 003, 004, 005 and 006 of 2016) and remanded to Luzira prison. He had earlier filed Miscellaneous Cause No. 176 of 2015 in the High Court Civil Division challenging his status in the UPDF and his continued retention in the armed forces. On 14 March 2016, Justice Margaret Oguli Oumo suspended the applicant's trial in the General Court Martial pending determination of the civil proceedings and directed him to apply for bail in the Criminal Division of the High Court. The Director of Public Prosecutions declined to appear citing Article 120(3)(b) of the Constitution which limits DPP jurisdiction to courts other than courts martial. The Registrar of the General Court Martial also declined to participate pending the outcome of the civil proceedings. The applicant's remand warrant expired on 31 March 2016. The application was heard ex parte with no state representation or affidavit in reply.

Issues

  1. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to grant bail to an applicant facing charges in the General Court Martial where those charges have been suspended by High Court order.
  2. Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Article 139(1) of the Constitution and s.39(2) of the Judicature Act to adopt a procedure for a bail application where no established procedure exists.
  3. Whether bail should be granted to the applicant having regard to the constitutional presumption of innocence, the bailable nature of the offences, and the suspension of proceedings in the General Court Martial.

Orders

  • Bail granted to the applicant.
  • Applicant bound in his recognizance of UGX 10,000,000/= (not cash).
  • Two sureties each bound in the sum of UGX 50,000,000/= (not cash).
  • Applicant to report to court every fortnight starting 15 April 2016 until Miscellaneous Cause No. 176 of 2015 is heard and determined.

Rules and key headnotes

Constitutional Law — High Court Jurisdiction — Original Jurisdiction — Unlimited Jurisdiction Under Article 139(1)
The original jurisdiction of the High Court vested by Article 139(1) of the Constitution is unlimited in all matters and can only be changed by amending the Constitution, not by the existence of specialised tribunals such as the General Court Martial.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Bail — High Court Power to Grant Bail Where Tribunal Proceedings Suspended
Where criminal proceedings in the General Court Martial have been suspended by High Court order pending determination of civil proceedings, the High Court has power to grant bail to an applicant charged before that tribunal, notwithstanding the absence of an established procedure, by exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Article 139(1) of the Constitution.
Civil Procedure — Inherent Powers — Power to Adopt Procedure Where None Provided — Section 39(2) Judicature Act
Where no procedure is laid down by written law or practice, the High Court may in its discretion adopt a procedure justifiable by the circumstances of the case under s.39(2) of the Judicature Act.
Human Rights — Right to Liberty — Right to Bail — Presumption of Innocence
The right to bail arises from the constitutional protection of the right to liberty. The right to liberty is a universal human right inherent in the individual and not granted by the state. Bail should not be refused merely as punishment as this would conflict with the presumption of innocence under Article 28(3)(a) of the Constitution. Refusal to grant bail must not be based on mere allegations but on substantiated grounds.
Constitutional Law — Administration of Justice — Substantive Justice Over Technicalities
Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution empowers courts to administer substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities. Where the circumstances of an application present a novel situation with no laid down procedure, the court must exercise its powers to do justice rather than fold its hands and render prior court orders redundant.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (3)

  • Lt. Col. John Kaye v Attorney General (Constitutional Application No. 25 of 2012)
  • M/S Rabo Enterprises (U) Ltd v Commissioner General URA (Civil Appeal No. 55 of 2003)
  • Hon Sam Kutesa & Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 46 of 2011 & Constitutional Reference No. 54 of 2011)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Gen. David Sejusa v Uganda (HCT-00-CR-CM 15 of 2016) [2016] UGHCCRD 497 (1 April 2016)
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.