Kairu & Anor v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application No. 34 of 2014)

Observed later treatment

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 single Justice declined to grant bail pending appeal to two applicants convicted of murder and sentenced to 15 years imprisonment. The court held that the joint application was improper because criminal responsibility is individual and each applicant ought to have filed a separate application. The applicants failed to attach a draft memorandum of appeal, the High Court judgment, or proof of residence, and so did not show their appeal had a likelihood of success. The court held that an applicant convicted of a serious violent offence must still prove exceptional circumstances under Section 15 of the Trial on Indictments Act, none of which were established. The application was dismissed.

Outcome

Application for bail pending appeal dismissed; applicants remain in custody pending appeal

Facts

The two applicants were each convicted of murder contrary to Sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act by the High Court at Iganga on 30 April 2014 and each sentenced to 15 years imprisonment. They filed a notice of appeal against both conviction and sentence and applied jointly for bail pending appeal. Their grounds included a fixed place of abode, compliance with bail conditions at trial, being first offenders, that the appeal was not frivolous and had high chances of success, and that there was a possibility of substantial delay in determining the appeal. The application was supported by two affidavits deponed by relatives, one of whom was illiterate. No draft memorandum of appeal, copy of the High Court judgment, or proof of residence was attached. The respondent opposed the application, arguing the applicants had not shown a likelihood of success and that the sureties were not substantial.

Issues

1. Whether the applicants, convicted of murder, satisfied the conditions for grant of bail pending appeal.
2. Whether a joint bail application by two applicants is competent.
3. Whether an applicant convicted of a serious offence must prove exceptional circumstances to obtain bail pending appeal.

Orders

• Application for bail pending appeal dismissed.
• Affidavit deponed by Nakagolo Mega struck out for non-compliance with the Protection of Illiterate Act.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (7)

• Penal Code Act s.188
• Penal Code Act s.189
• Trial on Indictments Act s.15
• Trial on Indictments Act s.132(4)
• Constitution of Uganda Article 23(6)
• Constitution of Uganda Article 28(3)
• Protection of Illiterate Act

Cases cited (4)

• Igamu Joanita v Uganda (Criminal Application No. 0107 of 2013)
• Arvid Patel v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 01 of 2003)
• Susan Kigula vs Attorney General
• Foundation for Human Rights Initiative v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 20 of 2009)

Cases citing this judgment (3)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Ro 120312 Lt. Ogwanga v Uganda (Civil Application 2 of 2023)
• Katebarirwe & Anor v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 165 of 2019)
• Mellan Mareere v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application No. 52 of 2017)

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