Mubone Sam v Uganda (HCT 05-CR-MA-36-2002)
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 refused bail to the applicant on grounds that the sureties presented were not substantial, important information regarding the stage of investigations and charges was not disclosed, and an affidavit in support was sworn by a person whose relevance was unclear under the Trial on Indictments Act 1998.
Outcome
Applicant remanded in custody
Facts
The applicant Mubone Sam applied for bail in criminal proceedings. Three sureties were presented: the first was described as a businessman of uncertain business, the second a casual labourer, and the third employed in an enterprise of uncertain magnitude. Dr. Baguma of Nyakibale Hospital swore an affidavit in support of the application. The court was not informed of the stage reached in investigations, the specific charges against the accused, or the amount of money involved.
Issues
- Whether the applicant should be granted bail
Orders
- Application for bail refused
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (1)
- Trial on Indictments Act 9 of 1998
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.