Wakilii

Kaggwa & Another v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application 26 of 2021)

High Court · [2021] UGHCACD 15 · 2021 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for bail pending appeal following conviction in the lower court
Decision
Both applicants remain in custody at Kitalya prison pending determination of their appeal.

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 applicants failed to discharge the burden required for bail pending appeal. No evidence was adduced to demonstrate the appeal had a likelihood of success, no draft memorandum of appeal was filed, insufficient evidence of character was led, no certificate of good conduct from police was provided, and the second applicant presented no sureties. The application was dismissed.

Outcome

Both applicants remain in custody at Kitalya prison pending determination of their appeal.

Facts

The applicants were convicted in a lower court of possession of uncustomed goods contrary to section 200(d)(ii) of the East African Community Customs Management Act 2004 and sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment. They had previously been granted bail during trial and complied with those terms. Following conviction, they filed Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 2021 and brought this application for bail pending appeal under section 132(4) of the Trial on Indictments Act. Only the first applicant presented sureties (four relatives engaged in small-scale businesses). The second applicant's sureties did not appear. No memorandum of appeal or draft grounds had been filed at the time of the hearing.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants should be granted bail pending appeal following their conviction for possession of uncustomed goods.

Orders

  • Application for bail pending appeal dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Bail Pending Appeal — Burden on Convicted Applicant
An applicant for bail pending appeal is a convict and therefore has a greater burden to prove his case than when he was on trial in the lower court. The presumption of innocence no longer fully applies and the temptation to flee is higher after conviction.
Bail Pending Appeal — Likelihood of Success
An applicant for bail pending appeal must demonstrate that the appeal is not frivolous and has a likelihood of success. A simple averment in the affidavit or statement from the bar will not suffice. There should be evidence of the grounds upon which the appeal is based and the errors of the lower court that have been appealed against. Without a memorandum of appeal or draft grounds, the court cannot determine likelihood of success.
Bail Pending Appeal — Evidence of Character
To establish good character for purposes of bail pending appeal, compliance with previous bail terms alone is insufficient. The applicant should adduce supporting evidence such as letters from local council authorities, certificates of good conduct from police, letters from employers, church or mosque, or membership of responsible organisations.
Bail Pending Appeal — Substantial Sureties
Sureties for bail pending appeal must be substantial. The court considers whether they are responsible members of society who understand their duty, whether they are independent of the applicant, whether they can exercise control over the applicant to ensure compliance with bail terms, whether they can be easily located, and whether they have capacity to meet bond requirements. Failure to present sureties is fatal to an application for bail pending appeal.
Bail Pending Appeal — Exceptional Circumstances
For bail pending appeal to be granted, exceptional circumstances must be proved. It is not sufficient that two or more factors from the Arvind Patel guidelines are met. The court must assess the evidence as a whole and determine whether exceptional circumstances justifying release have been established.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (7)

  • Arvind Patel v Uganda (Criminal Application No. 1 of 2003)
  • Igamu Joanita v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Application No. 107 of 2013)
  • Bamutura Henry v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application No. 19 of 2019)
  • Mbabazi Rovence Natukunda and Louse Kahunda v Uganda (Criminal Application No. 47 of 2012)
  • Mellen Mareere v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application No. 52 of 2017)
  • Obey Christopher and Others v Uganda (ACD Miscellaneous Application Nos. 045, 046 and 047 of 2015)
  • Ismail Kalule v Uganda (ICD Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of 2018)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kaggwa & Another v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application 26 of 2021) [2021] UGHCACD 15 (30 November 2021)
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.