Wakilii

Malibano Abdul & Anor v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 5 of 2008) (Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 5 of 2008)

High Court · [2008] UGHC 42 · 2008 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for bail pending trial after committal to High Court on murder charge
Decision
Applicants 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

The High Court dismissed the bail application for two accused persons charged with murder, despite acknowledging that they had been held in custody since committal in April 2006 without trial. The court held that the gravity of the capital offence and risk of absconding outweighed the constitutional concern for speedy trial, while urging the DPP to expedite trial arrangements.

Outcome

Applicants remanded in custody pending trial

Facts

Abdul Malibano and Badru Mukasa were charged with murder contrary to sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code. They were committed to the High Court for trial on 19 April 2006. By the date of this application in 2008, they had been held in custody for approximately two years without trial. The applicants applied for bail on the ground that their constitutional right to speedy trial had been violated by the inordinate delay. The DPP, though aware of the fixtures since 5 February 2008, was not represented at the hearing.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants should be granted bail pending trial for a capital offence of murder.
  2. Whether the applicants' constitutional right to speedy trial has been violated by delay since committal in 2006.

Orders

  • Bail application dismissed.
  • Accused/applicants remanded in custody.
  • Court urged the DPP to arrange trial date without further delay.

Rules and key headnotes

Bail — Capital Offences — Discretion of Court
Whether or not bail is granted in a capital offence is a matter for the discretion of the court, and no general rule can be laid down; each case must turn on its own merits or demerits.
Bail — Factors Considered — Gravity of Offence and Risk of Absconding
In considering a bail application for a capital offence, the court is entitled to consider the seriousness of the charge, the temptation to abscond, and the fact that the accused have already been committed for trial, and these factors may outweigh other considerations including residence within jurisdiction.
Bail — Examination of Evidence — Court's Entitlement
In determining a bail application, the court is entitled to examine the summary of evidence so long as the same judge does not preside over the trial.
Right to Speedy Trial — Constitutional Requirement
Speedy trial is a constitutional requirement, and where accused persons have been held in custody for an inordinate period without trial, the prosecution should be urged to expedite the trial without further delay.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (1)

  • Uganda (DPP) v Col (Rtd) Dr. Kiiza Besigye (Constitutional Reference No. 20 of 2005)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Malibano Abdul & Anor v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 5 of 2008) (Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 5 of 2008) [2008] UGHC 42 (14 April 2008)
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.