Wakilii

Kyarikunda Adrine v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 96 of 2019)

High Court · [2020] UGHC 13 · 2020 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for bail pending trial on a charge of murder
Decision
Applicant remanded 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

Application for bail pending trial on a murder charge dismissed. The applicant failed to prove exceptional circumstances required for bail on a capital offence under section 15(3) of the Trial on Indictments Act. The claim that she had recently given birth was unsupported by medical evidence showing special care needs unavailable in prison. The court declined to exercise its discretion to grant bail, noting the skillful nature of the alleged murder involving poisonous substances, family misunderstandings surrounding the death, and the risk of witness tampering.

Outcome

Applicant remanded in custody pending trial

Facts

The applicant, Kyarikunda Adrine, a female resident of Rwabuganga cell, Ngarama division, Isingiro district, was indicted for the murder of Bitwiromunda Lawrence on 20 June 2019 at Rwabaganga village. The applicant allegedly committed the offence together with others still at large. The applicant applied for bail pending trial, claiming she had recently given birth to a baby requiring extreme care unavailable in prison, had a fixed place of abode, substantial sureties, and would not interfere with investigations. She produced two sureties: her cousin, a retired civil servant and LC III chairman, and her sister, a businesswoman. The prosecution opposed bail, arguing the offence was capital in nature, the applicant's participation was high, and she was likely to abscond. The death allegedly involved the use of toxic or poisonous substances and arose from family misunderstandings.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant should be granted bail pending trial on a charge of murder.
  2. Whether the applicant has established exceptional circumstances justifying bail under section 15(3) of the Trial on Indictments Act.
  3. Whether the court should exercise its discretion to grant bail in the absence of exceptional circumstances.

Orders

  • Bail denied.
  • Application dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Bail — Capital Offences — Exceptional Circumstances under Trial on Indictments Act s.15(3)
Where an applicant is charged with a capital offence, bail may only be granted if the applicant proves to the satisfaction of the court an exceptional circumstance as required by section 15(3) of the Trial on Indictments Act.
Bail — Exceptional Circumstances — Recent Childbirth — Burden of Proof
The fact that an applicant has recently given birth does not in itself constitute an exceptional circumstance justifying bail on a capital charge unless the applicant adduces evidence that special medical attention or care is required for mother and child that cannot be provided by prison authorities.
Bail — Discretion of the Court — Capital Offences
The court retains residual discretion to grant bail on a capital charge even in the absence of exceptional circumstances, but the applicant must put forth a set of facts beyond the ordinary considerations for bail upon which the court can act in exercising that discretion.
Right to Bail — Constitutional Guarantee and Judicial Discretion
While Articles 23(6)(a) and 28(3) of the Constitution confer on accused persons the right to apply for bail, the grant of bail is discretionary to the court.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (3)

  • Uganda v Kiiza Besigye (Constitutional Reference No. 20 of 2005)
  • Florence Byabazaire v Uganda (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 284 of 2006)
  • Bongomin Richard Akal v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application No. 0037 of 2008)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kyarikunda Adrine v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 96 of 2019) [2020] UGHC 13 (24 January 2020)
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.