Wakilii

Kivumbi Achileo and Others v Uganda (Consolidated Criminal Bail Applications No. 15, 16, 17 and 21 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 821 · 2025 Applications Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Consolidated bail applications by four accused persons charged with aggravated robbery, simple robbery, and assault occasioning actual bodily harm
Decision
Bail applications dismissed; applicants to remain in custody pending trial

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 dismissed all four consolidated bail applications. The court held that despite the applicants having fixed places of abode and mostly substantial sureties, the gravity of the offences charged—particularly aggravated robbery carrying a capital penalty—coupled with the targeted nature of assaults on journalists in the line of duty and the prosecution's readiness to proceed to trial, meant that no combination of bail conditions could adequately safeguard community safety and the integrity of proceedings. The court found that bail must be refused to prevent further risk and ensure timely administration of justice.

Outcome

Bail applications dismissed; applicants to remain in custody pending trial

Facts

Four applicants were jointly charged with six counts of aggravated robbery, simple robbery, and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The alleged offences involved violence against journalists who were in the line of duty at the time. The applicants filed consolidated bail applications seeking release pending trial. They argued they had constitutional rights to bail, fixed places of abode, substantial sureties, and would not interfere with witnesses. The prosecution opposed the applications, citing the gravity of the offences, the use of violence, the public interest nature of the case involving attacks on journalists, and their readiness to proceed to trial. The court heard arguments on the substantiality of sureties, the applicants' places of residence, and whether exceptional circumstances existed to justify bail for capital offences.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants should be granted bail pending trial on charges of aggravated robbery, simple robbery, and assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
  2. Whether the sureties presented by the applicants were substantial and met the requirements under the Bail Guidelines.
  3. Whether the applicants had fixed places of abode within the jurisdiction of the court.
  4. Whether exceptional circumstances existed to justify granting bail for capital offences.

Orders

  • Applications HCT-06-CR-CM-0015-2025, HCT-06-CR-CM-0016-2025, HCT-06-CR-CM-00117-2025 and HCT-06-CR-CM-0021-2025 for bail dismissed.
  • The learned Deputy Registrar of the court is directed to prioritize the cause-listing for trial of these matters in the earliest available criminal session of the court.

Rules and key headnotes

Bail — Judicial Discretion — Factors to Consider
The grant or denial of bail is an exercise of judicial discretion that must be exercised judiciously, taking into consideration the unique circumstances of each case, guided by the rule of law, common sense and justice, and not by humour, vagueness and fanciful considerations. The court must balance the interests of the accused person and those of society.
Bail — Sureties — Requirements for Substantiality
A surety must be a fit and genuine person who has a genuine address, establishes identity through production of identity documents, and has a command effect upon the applicant to ensure court attendance. The court ascertains genuineness by requiring residential proof through introduction letters from local council authorities. Fitness is determined by the relationship, age, and ability of the surety to command the applicant's compliance with bail conditions.
Documentary Evidence — Primary and Secondary Evidence — Photocopies
While photocopies of documents may be allowed as secondary evidence under the Evidence Act, this is not automatic. A party seeking to rely on secondary evidence must place before court facts that satisfy one of the seven instances laid down in Section 64 of the Evidence Act to justify departure from the requirement of primary evidence.
Bail — Capital Offences — Exceptional Circumstances
The court may only grant bail where the applicant is accused of a capital offence in exceptional circumstances, which include grave illness, a certificate of no objection from the Director of Public Prosecutions, and infancy or advanced age. The applicant bears the burden to satisfy the court by putting forth facts beyond ordinary bail considerations. However, the court retains discretion to overlook this requirement and admit an applicant to bail even without proof of exceptional circumstances.
Bail — Capital Offences — Refusal on Grounds of Gravity and Public Safety
Bail should not easily be granted where the offence charged carries a mandatory capital penalty since there is a perceived great temptation to abscond. Where the gravity of offences, particularly aggravated robbery carrying a capital penalty, is coupled with the targeted nature of assaults on journalists and the prosecution's readiness to proceed to trial, no combination of bail conditions can adequately safeguard community safety and the integrity of proceedings, justifying refusal of bail.
Fair Trial — Adversarial System — Trial by Ambush
The adversarial judicial system requires equality between contestants in litigation where parties must beforehand disclose pre-trial materials and exhibits with their adversary in line with Article 28(1)(3) of the Constitution. This helps the opposite party prepare for trial. Any divergent procedure is repugnant to Article 28(1)(3) and the court cannot approve of trial by ambush.

Legislation cited (27)

  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda art.23(6)(c)(a)
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda art.28(1)
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda art.28(3)(a)
  • Trial on Indictments Act Cap.25 s.14
  • Trial on Indictments Act Cap.25 s.15
  • Trial on Indictments Act Cap.128 s.16
  • Judicature (Criminal Procedure) (Applications) Rules SI 13-8 r.2
  • Judicature (Criminal Procedure) (Applications) Rules SI 13-8 r.4
  • Constitution (Bail Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions 2022 para.10
  • Constitution (Bail Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions 2022 para.11
  • Constitution (Bail Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions 2022 guideline 12(a)
  • Constitution (Bail Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions 2022 guideline 13(1)
  • Constitution (Bail Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions 2022 guideline 13(1)(a)
  • Constitution (Bail Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions 2022 guideline 13(1)(b)
  • Constitution (Bail Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions 2022 guideline 13(k)
  • Constitution (Bail Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions 2022 guideline 14
  • Constitution (Bail Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions 2022 guideline 14(2)
  • Constitution (Bail Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions 2022 guideline 15
  • Constitution (Bail Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions 2022 guideline 15(d)
  • Constitution (Bail Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions 2022 guideline 16(2)
  • Justices of the Peace Act Cap.17 s.3
  • Commissioners for Oaths (Advocates) Act Cap.6
  • Evidence Act Cap.80 s.60
  • Evidence Act Cap.80 s.61
  • Evidence Act Cap.80 s.63
  • Evidence Act Cap.80 s.64
  • Evidence Act Cap.8 s.101

Cases cited (16)

  • Bamutura v Uganda (2020 UGSC 2)
  • Kanyamunyu Mathew v Uganda (High Court Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 151 of 2020)
  • R v Wilkes (1770) 4 Burr 2527
  • Gardner v Jay (1885) 29 Ch 50
  • Parimal vs Veena alias Bhart (2011) 3 SCC 345
  • Foundation for Human Rights Initiatives v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 20 of 2006)
  • Uganda (DPP) v Col. (RTD) Dr. Kiiza Besigye (Constitutional Reference No. 20 of 2005)
  • Lawrence Luzinda v Uganda (1986) HCB 33
  • Joseph Tushabe v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 6 of 2004)
  • Magombe Joshua v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 11 of 2019)
  • Nasasira Hannington and 2 Others v Uganda (High Court Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 56 of 2019)
  • Besigye Kiiza v Museveni Yoweri Kaguta and Another (Supreme Court Election Petition No. 1 of 2001)
  • Soon Yeon Kong Kim Kwang Mao v Attorney General (Constitutional Reference No. 6 of 2007)
  • Jaffer v R [1972] HCD 92
  • Bongomin Richard Akal v Uganda (High Court Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 37 of 2008)
  • Byamukama Abel and Another v Uganda (High Court Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 3 of 2020)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kivumbi Achileo and Others v Uganda (Consolidated Criminal Bail Applications No. 15, 16, 17 and 21 of 2025) [2025] UGHC 821 (22 August 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.