Mugerwa & Anor v Uganda (Criminal Application No. 114 of 2015)

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.

Holding

The Court of Appeal, sitting as a single Justice, dismissed an application for bail pending appeal by two convicts found guilty of being accessory after the fact to murder. The Court held that an applicant for bail pending appeal must prove exceptional and unusual circumstances and must additionally show diligence and vigour in prosecuting the intended appeal. Despite favourable factors (first offenders, substantial sureties, fixed abode, advanced age), the applicants had filed only the bail application and no record or memorandum of appeal almost a year after conviction, with no explanation. The Court found them indolent and unlikely to pursue the appeal if released, and refused bail.

Outcome

Application for bail pending appeal dismissed; applicants to continue serving their sentences pending appeal.

Facts

The applicants, a married couple, were tried and convicted on 19 June 2014 by the High Court at Kampala of being accessory after the fact to murder contrary to section 206 of the Penal Code Act, each sentenced to 26 months imprisonment. Their biological son murdered an eight-year-old child inside the applicants' residential house, leaving blood-stained walls and rags. Trial evidence accepted as truthful established that the applicants became aware of the murder but did not report it to police and tried to prevent their son from talking to police. The son was convicted of murder and sentenced to 50 years imprisonment. The applicants lodged a Notice of Appeal on 2 July 2014 but, almost a year later, had filed no memorandum or record of appeal. They applied for bail pending appeal on 20 March 2015, relying on good character, first-offender status, substantial sureties, a fixed abode and advanced age.

Issues

1. Whether the applicants, as convicts seeking bail pending appeal, demonstrated exceptional and unusual circumstances warranting their release on bail.
2. Whether the applicants were diligent and vigorous in prosecuting their intended appeal so as to justify the grant of bail pending appeal.

Orders

• Application dismissed.
• Each applicant ordered to continue serving his/her sentence to completion, subject to the outcome of their intended appeal or until ordered otherwise by a competent court.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (2)

• Penal Code Act s.206
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.28(3)(a)

Cases cited (3)

• Raghbir Singh Lamba v R [1958] EA 337
• Arvind Patel v Uganda (Criminal Application No. 1 of 2003)
• John Kashaka Muhanguzi v Uganda (Criminal Application No. 187 of 2014)

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