Wakilii

Isadat v Uganda (criminal misc Application no. 113 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 614 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for bail pending trial on murder charge committed to High Court
Decision
Applicant remanded in custody pending trial

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 that the applicant failed to satisfy the court that he should be released on bail. The court found a strong possibility that the applicant would interfere with witnesses who are resident in the same locality, well known to him, and not under protection. The applicant also failed to prove that his health condition could not be managed in the prison facility. The bail application was dismissed.

Outcome

Applicant remanded in custody pending trial

Facts

The applicant was charged with murder contrary to sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act (now sections 171 and 172 of the PCA Cap 128). It was alleged that on 28 November 2022 at Amukurat Village in Katakwi District, the applicant with malice aforethought caused the death of Arisai Stella. The applicant was arrested around November or December 2022, charged, and remanded. He was committed to the High Court for trial on 24 July 2023 and remanded to Soroti Government Prison. He had not been cause listed for trial at the time of the application. The applicant applied for bail on grounds including presumption of innocence, that he is a first-time offender, has substantial sureties, a fixed place of abode, and suffers from chronic bronchial asthma and chronic peptic ulcers requiring monthly routine visits. The state opposed the application on grounds that the applicant was likely to abscond given the gravity of the offence, likely to interfere with witnesses who are known to him and not under protection, and had not shown that his health could not be managed in prison.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant has established sufficient grounds for his release on bail pending trial for murder.

Orders

  • Bail application dismissed.
  • Applicant to await placing of his case on session for hearing.

Rules and key headnotes

Bail — Murder Charges — Discretion to Grant or Refuse
Under Section 16(1) of the Trial on Indictments Act, the High Court may refuse to grant bail to any person charged with murder unless the applicant proves to the satisfaction of the court that he or she will not abscond when released on bail and that exceptional circumstances exist justifying release on bail. However, following Foundation for Human Rights Initiatives v Attorney General, it is no longer mandatory to prove exceptional circumstances, and courts retain discretion to grant bail even when none is proved.
Bail — Factors for Determining Likelihood of Abscondment
In considering whether an accused is likely to abscond if released on bail, the court may take into account whether the accused has a fixed abode within the jurisdiction or is ordinarily resident outside Uganda, whether the accused has sound sureties within the jurisdiction, whether the accused has previously failed to comply with bail conditions, and whether there are other charges pending against the accused.
Bail — Suitability of Sureties — Determining Factors
When considering the suitability of a surety, the court shall take into account the age of the surety, work and residential address, character and antecedents, relationship to the accused person, and any other factor the court may deem fit. The proposed surety shall provide documentary proof including a copy of National Identity Card, passport or alien's Identification Card, and an introduction letter from the local council chairperson.
Bail — Likelihood of Witness Interference — Factors to Consider
For the court to conclude whether an applicant for bail is likely to interfere with witnesses, the court must consider a number of circumstances including the nature of the offence, the age of the applicant, how long the applicant has been on remand, and how influential the applicant is in the community. Where witnesses are resident in the same locality as the applicant, are well known to the applicant, and are not under any protection, and given the gravity of the offence, the court may find a strong possibility of witness interference.
Bail — Medical Grounds — Burden of Proof
An applicant relying on ill health as a ground for bail must prove that his or her health condition cannot be managed in the prison facility. An Out Patient Medical Form indicating routine visits for chronic care is not sufficient to prove that the applicant's health cannot be managed in prison.
Presumption of Innocence — Bail Applications
The foundational basis upon which the court exercises its discretion to allow or reject an application for bail is the presumption of innocence, based on Article 28(3)(a) of the Constitution which provides that every person charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty or until that person has pleaded guilty.
Right to Liberty — Bail — Balancing with Interest of Justice
When exercising discretion to grant or refuse bail, the court must balance the applicant's right to be presumed innocent, the applicant's right to liberty, the applicant's obligation to attend trial, the discretion of the court to grant bail on reasonable terms and conditions, and the need to balance the rights of the applicant and the interest of justice.

Legislation cited (15)

Cases cited (3)

  • Uganda v Lawrence Luzinda (1986) HCB 33
  • Foundation for Human Rights Initiatives v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 20 of 2006)
  • Uganda v Kizza Besigye (Constitutional Reference No. 20 of 2005)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Isadat v Uganda (criminal misc Application no. 113_2024) [2025] UGHC 614 (14 July 2025)
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.