Wakilii

Kasiiku & Another v Uganda (Criminal Application No. 21 & 23 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHCACD 11 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Consolidated bail applications arising from criminal case 13 of 2025 in the High Court Anti-Corruption Division
Decision
Applicants released on bail subject to conditions including cash deposit, property securities, passport deposit, reporting requirements, and sureties executing bonds

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 court granted bail to both applicants, holding that the constitutional presumption of innocence and protection of liberty require that accused persons not be remanded unless factors for release are absent. The court found that the applicants had furnished sufficient securities and sureties, that seven co-accused had already been released on bail without incident, and that fears of re-offending or interference with investigations were speculative and unsupported by evidence. Section 15 of the Trial on Indictments Act is regulatory, not mandatory, and does not remove the court's discretion to grant bail without proof of exceptional circumstances.

Outcome

Applicants released on bail subject to conditions including cash deposit, property securities, passport deposit, reporting requirements, and sureties executing bonds

Facts

The two applicants are charged alongside seven others in Criminal Case 13 of 2025 with offences including causing financial loss, corruption, abuse of office, electronic fraud, and money laundering. The charges relate to alleged manipulation of payment instruction files on the Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS) resulting in fraudulent diversion of funds totalling approximately USD 8.5 million intended for repayment of sovereign debts to the African Development Bank and International Development Association. The funds were allegedly diverted to entities in the UK, Japan, and Poland. Mark Kasiiku, an IT officer, is charged with three counts relating to USD 391,720.45 and USD 8,596,824.26. Yawe Tony, a Senior IT Officer, is charged with six counts relating to multiple fraudulent payments. Seven co-accused had already been released on bail. The applicants' first bail application was rejected for insufficient securities. Out of USD 8,596,824.26 allegedly wired out, USD 8,205,163.81 was recovered, leaving USD 391,660.45 outstanding. The applicants now applied for bail with enhanced securities and additional sureties.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants have furnished sufficient securities and sureties to guarantee their return to court for trial.
  2. Whether the gravity of the offences charged and the nature of the alleged crimes warrant denial of bail.
  3. Whether the applicants pose a flight risk or risk of interfering with investigations if released on bail.
  4. Whether exceptional circumstances must be proved before bail can be granted in economic crimes cases.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Each applicant shall deposit UGX 50,000,000 in court.
  • Each applicant shall deposit the staked securities (Owner's Copy) plus a registered power of attorney for each property not in the applicant's sole names.
  • Mark Kasiiku shall deposit Plot 3806 Kyadondo Block 244 (valued at UGX 1,400,000,000), Plot 1438 Kyadondo Block 246 (valued at UGX 800,000,000), and Plot 3617 Kyadondo Block 228 (valued at UGX 150,000,000) as security for bail.
  • Yawe Tony shall deposit Block 376 Plot 375 Katale Busiro (valued at UGX 250,000,000), Kibuga Block 24 Plot 467 Lungujja (valued at UGX 420,000,000), FRV WBU6474 Folio 1 Plot 706 Block G 537 Katale (valued at UGX 168,000,000), and Mawokota Block 244 Plot 30 Namasawo (valued at UGX 85,000,000) as security for bail.
  • Each applicant shall deposit his passport in court.
  • Each applicant is prevented from going to office except with permission of PS/ST.
  • Each surety for each applicant shall execute a bond of UGX 500,000,000 (not cash).
  • Each person released on bail shall report to the Registrar of this court once every month starting 22nd May 2025.
  • If any applicant fails to meet the terms set by court, he shall be remanded to appear before the magistrate for mention of their case as directed by the Chief Magistrate on their next reporting date.

Rules and key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Right to Liberty — Bail — Presumption of Innocence — Remand as Judicial Act
Remanding a person in custody is a judicial act requiring the court to summon its judicial mind before depriving the applicant of liberty, and the court should consider all relevant circumstances including the constitutional presumption of innocence under Article 28(3)(a) and the protection of liberty under Article 23(1)(a)-(h) of the Constitution.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Bail — Section 15 Trial on Indictments Act — Exceptional Circumstances — Discretionary Not Mandatory
Section 15 of the Trial on Indictments Act is regulatory, not mandatory, and does not remove the discretionary powers of the High Court to grant bail. It is not mandatory to prove exceptional circumstances in every case unless the court so requires of the applicant. The plain meaning of section 15(1) is that the court may refuse to grant bail unless the accused proves exceptional circumstances, but the provision does not take away the court's discretion to grant bail without requiring proof of exceptional circumstances.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Bail — Economic Crimes — Gravity of Offence — Sufficient Securities and Sureties
In economic crimes cases, the gravity of the offence does not automatically warrant denial of bail where the accused furnishes sufficient securities and sound sureties to assure the court of compliance with bail conditions. The court will not release a person accused of an economic crime on bail unless sufficient guarantees are furnished, but where such guarantees are provided, bail may be granted notwithstanding the gravity of the charges.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Bail — Flight Risk and Interference with Investigations — Evidence Required
Allegations that an accused will interfere with witnesses or investigations if released on bail must be supported by credible evidence from the investigating officer or potential witnesses who have been improperly approached. Speculation about interference without such evidence is insufficient to justify denial of bail. Keeping a prisoner on remand does not itself effectively prevent interference with witnesses, as such interference can occur through prison visits.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Bail — Objections to Bail — Evidence on Oath Required
Objections to bail should be supported by evidence on oath through affidavits, not merely by submissions from the bar. Submissions about public reaction or public confidence in the justice system without supporting affidavit evidence are insufficient to ground objection to bail.
Constitutional Law — Rule of Law — Public Confidence — Bail and Constitutionalism
Public confidence in the justice system is enhanced when courts follow the law and constitutional principles, not by adopting a remand culture. The notion that releasing criminal suspects on bail undermines the rule of law and lowers public confidence offends constitutionalism, which is the bedrock of the rule of law. Justice is not equal to the denial of bail.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (9)

  • Col. (Rtd) Dr Kiiza Besigye v Uganda (Misc. Application 113 of 2025)
  • Hon. Mutembuli and Others v Uganda (Misc. Applications 41, 42 & 47 of 2024)
  • Uganda v Col (Rtd) Dr. Kiiza Besigye (Constitutional Petition 20 of 2005)
  • Uganda v Col Dr. Kiiza Besigye (Constitutional Reference 20 of 2005)
  • FHRI v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition 20 of 2006)
  • Panju v Republic [1973] 1 EA 282
  • Jaffer v Republic [1973] 1 EA 39
  • Uganda v Jimmy Lwamafa and 2 Others (Criminal Case 9 of 2015)
  • Uganda v Asiimwe Annah (Criminal Case 130 of 2024)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kasiiku & Another v Uganda (Criminal Application No. 21 & 23 of 2025) [2025] UGHCACD 11 (22 April 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.