Wakilii

Kisembo Tito & 2 Ors v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application 52 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 411 · 2024 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for bail pending trial in respect of three applicants charged with murder
Decision
Applicants granted bail subject to conditions including cash bonds, surety bonds, and monthly reporting requirements

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 charged with murder and remanded for over 180 days were entitled to bail under Article 23(6)(c) of the Constitution. Although murder is a grave offence requiring proof of exceptional circumstances under Section 15 of the Trial on Indictments Act, the court exercised its discretion to grant bail considering factors including the extended period on remand, fixed places of abode, production of substantial sureties, and balancing the constitutional right to bail against the gravity of the offence.

Outcome

Applicants granted bail subject to conditions including cash bonds, surety bonds, and monthly reporting requirements

Facts

Three applicants were arrested on 2 February 2023 and charged with murder arising from Bundibugyo Criminal Case No. AA 008 of 2023. The first applicant was aged 63 years, the second applicant 23 years, and the third applicant 39 years. They had been remanded for over 180 days without being committed to the High Court for trial. All applicants had fixed places of abode in Bundibugyo District and produced substantial sureties. The investigating officer stated in opposition that investigations had not been completed for over a year due to non-cooperation of principal witnesses. Each applicant held national identity documents (except the second applicant).

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants should be released on bail pending trial.
  2. Whether the applicants proved exceptional circumstances justifying their release on bail.
  3. Whether the applicants demonstrated they would not abscond if released on bail.

Orders

  • Bail granted to all three applicants.
  • A copy of this ruling shall be served upon the ODPP Regional Officer.
  • Each applicant is to execute and pay a cash bond of UGX 1,000,000.
  • Each of the sureties will execute a non-cash bond of UGX 20,000,000.
  • Each applicant shall register their full contact details and those of their sureties and LC Chairpersons with the Office of the Regional Officer ODPP.
  • Each applicant is to report to the Assistant Registrar of this Court and to the Officer in Charge of Criminal Investigations at Bundibugyo Police Station on the last Tuesday of every month starting in June 2024 until further Orders of this Court.

Rules and key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Bail Pending Trial — Article 23(6)(c) — Automatic Right After 180 Days on Remand
Where a person is remanded in custody for 180 days or more before the case is committed to the High Court for trial, that person shall be released on bail on such conditions as the court considers reasonable under Article 23(6)(c) of the Constitution.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Bail — Exercise of Judicial Discretion — Discretion Not Absolute
Where legislation confers upon a court the discretion to grant or refuse bail, such discretion must be exercised without malice, ill will, ulterior motives, or regard to external influence, and the court must be satisfied that the provisions of the law have been complied with.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Bail — Murder Charge — Exceptional Circumstances — Court's Overall Jurisdiction
Although a person charged with murder must prove exceptional circumstances to be released on bail under Section 15 of the Trial on Indictments Act, the court has overall jurisdiction to grant bail even in the absence of proven exceptional circumstances through the judicial exercise of its discretion, provided the applicant satisfies the court with a set of facts beyond the ordinary considerations for bail.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Bail — Likelihood of Absconding — Relevant Factors
In determining whether an applicant for bail is likely to abscond, the court may consider whether the applicant has a fixed abode within the jurisdiction, whether they have sound sureties, their previous compliance with bail conditions, and whether other charges are pending against them.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Bail — Serious Offences — Risk Assessment — Gravity Alone Insufficient
While a person charged with a serious offence facing a severe penalty may have a powerful incentive to abscond, the gravity of the offence and potential penalty do not of themselves constitute grounds for refusing bail without more; they are factors relevant to the judgment whether in all circumstances it is necessary to deprive the applicant of liberty.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (8)

  • Col (Rtd) Dr. Kizza Besigye v Uganda (Criminal Application No. 83 of 2016)
  • Tumwekwase Owen v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application No. 57 of 2019)
  • Uganda v Kiiza Besigye (Constitutional Reference No. 20 of 2005)
  • Florence Byabazaire v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application No. 284 of 2006)
  • Bongomin Richard Akal v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application No. 37 of 2008)
  • Aliobe Joseph & Ors v Uganda (Miscellaneous Criminal Application Nos. 15, 16, and 17 of 2016)
  • Hurnam v State of Mauritius [2006] 1 WLR 857, PC
  • Obey Christopher & Ors (Miscellaneous Application Nos. 45, 46, and 47 of 2015)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kisembo Tito & 2 Ors v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application 52 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 411 (31 May 2024)
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.