Wakilii

Kakooza Zawadi Alias Busheke and Others v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application 10 of 2026)

High Court · [2026] UGHCACD 9 · 2026 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for bail arising from criminal charges in the Chief Magistrate's Court at the Anti-Corruption Division
Decision
First applicant admitted to bail on specified terms; second and third applicants remain on remand pending presentation of suitable sureties

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

The High Court granted bail to the first applicant, finding he had a fixed place of abode, suitable sureties willing to offer land titles as security, no history of absconding, and no evidence he would interfere with justice. The court dispensed with the requirement for exceptional circumstances, holding that asset recovery concerns were insufficiently proved and that the five-month remand period weighed in favour of release. The second and third applicants were denied bail solely for failure to present suitable sureties, though they qualified on all other grounds.

Outcome

First applicant admitted to bail on specified terms; second and third applicants remain on remand pending presentation of suitable sureties

Facts

Three applicants were charged before the Chief Magistrate's Court at the Anti-Corruption Division on 20 February 2026 with theft of 275.75 metric tonnes of Ethylene-vinyl Acetate materials valued at UGX 955,005,000 belonging to Laudy Industries Ltd, conspiracy to commit theft, and money laundering. The first and second applicants were arrested on 29 October 2025, granted bail on 8 January 2026, but had their bail cancelled five days later when charges were amended to include money laundering. The third applicant was arrested on 2 January 2026. All three applied for bail, supported by affidavits and sureties. The prosecution opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the offences, ongoing asset recovery efforts, and alleged risk of interference with investigations. The applicants had been on remand for three to five months at the time of the ruling.

Issues

  1. Whether the first applicant is likely to abscond if granted bail.
  2. Whether the second applicant is likely to abscond if granted bail.
  3. Whether the third applicant is likely to abscond if granted bail.
  4. Whether the applicants have presented suitable sureties.
  5. Whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify release on bail for offences triable only by the High Court.
  6. Whether the applicants will interfere with witnesses or the course of justice if released on bail.
  7. Whether the interests of justice favour granting bail.

Orders

  • First applicant released on bail.
  • First applicant to deposit cash bail of UGX 8,000,000.
  • Each surety for first applicant bonded at UGX 20,000,000.
  • Certificates of title for Kyaggwe Block 147 Plot 318 and Kyaggwe Block 147 Plot 357 to be deposited in court as security.
  • First applicant barred from travelling out of the country during pendency of trial except with leave of court.
  • First applicant's passport to be deposited in court.
  • First applicant to return to court on dates set by magistrate in main case.
  • Second applicant's application for bail dismissed.
  • Third applicant's application for bail dismissed.
  • Court will consider release of second and third applicants when suitable sureties are presented or evidence of suitability of already presented sureties is provided.

Rules and key headnotes

Bail — Right to Apply — Constitutional Guarantee and Court Discretion
Article 23(6)(a) of the Constitution guarantees the right of an individual charged with a criminal offence to apply for release on bail, and grants the court discretion to release them on such conditions as it may deem reasonable, but the applicant has only the right to apply and the court has the discretion to grant the application, which must be exercised wisely and in the interest of justice.
Bail — Exceptional Circumstances — Dispensation in Interests of Justice
Even in the absence of exceptional circumstances as defined in section 15(3) of the Trial on Indictments Act, the court may grant bail if it serves the interests of justice, and it is up to the trial court to decide whether, in the circumstances of a given case, it will dispense with the requirement for exceptional circumstances or not.
Bail — Suitability of Sureties — Spouse as Surety
The principle of non-compellability of a spouse under section 120 of the Evidence Act, which applies to criminal trial proceedings, has no application when considering the suitability of a spouse as a surety in bail proceedings, and a spouse who is an independent person, gainfully employed, and owner of property offered as security is capable of performing the duties of a surety.
Bail — Suitability of Sureties — Burden of Proof and Evidence Required
In economic crimes, the applicant bears the burden of adducing evidence to demonstrate the suitability of proposed sureties, including proof of their capacity to pay bond sums through evidence of income, ownership of valuable assets, or offer of security, and the court must consider the value of the subject matter and assess whether the surety would be capable of meeting the bond in light of the facts presented.
Bail — Asset Recovery — Burden of Proof on Prosecution
Where the prosecution opposes bail on grounds of ongoing asset recovery efforts and risk of dissipation of assets, the party alleging must adduce evidence by affidavit to demonstrate that assets are indeed being traced, the steps taken, the challenges faced, and the basis for the fear that assets are under threat of dissipation or interference, and it would be wrong to deny bail on the mere claim that assets are being traced and may be disposed of.
Bail — Interference with Justice — Burden of Proof
Capability to interfere with witnesses or the course of justice does not itself constitute a threat sufficient to deny bail, and the respondent must adduce evidence that lays the basis for any claims of possible interference, as speculations, fear, and suspicion are not enough to reject an application for bail.
Bail — Suitability of Sureties — Varying Levels of Control and Financial Capacity
Sureties do not always wield the same level of control, and the financial capacity of one surety may not be strong yet he or she has great influence over the applicant by virtue of relationships or obligations or vice versa, and admitting sureties with different strengths may provide a better safety net for the applicant's compliance with bail terms if granted.

Legislation cited (14)

Cases cited (4)

  • Uganda v Dr Kizza Besigye (Constitutional Reference No. 20 of 2005)
  • Foundation for Human Rights Initiative v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 3 of 2009)
  • Hon Yusuf Mutembuli and Others v Uganda (ACD Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 41, 42 and 47 of 2024)
  • Criminal Appeal No 728/2013; Nimmagadda Prasad (appellants) versus Central Bureau of Investigation

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kakooza Zawadi Alias Busheke and Others v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application 10 of 2026) [2026] UGHCACD 9 (7 April 2026)
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.