Nakiwuge v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application 15 of 2019)

Observed later treatment

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

A single judge of the Supreme Court declined to grant bail pending appeal to an applicant convicted of embezzlement, false accounting and forgery whose appeal to the Court of Appeal had been dismissed. The judge reaffirmed her earlier position that there is no constitutional provision permitting the grant of bail to a person already convicted, that Arvind Patel v Uganda (which set out the considerations for bail pending appeal) was wrongly decided, and that Rule 6(2)(b) of the Supreme Court Rules is void for inconsistency with the Constitution. Finding no merit in the applicant's submissions, the judge ordered that the applicant continue serving her sentence.

Outcome

Bail pending appeal refused; applicant to continue serving her sentence.

Facts

On 8 July 2015 the applicant was convicted by the High Court Anti-Corruption Division of embezzlement, false accounting and forgery, each count carrying an alternative count of uttering false documents. She was sentenced to three and a half years' imprisonment on embezzlement and 15 months on false accounting and forgery, to run concurrently, and was disqualified from holding public office for 10 years from 15 July 2015. The offences arose from her role, as National Coordinator, in the resettlement of Bududa landslide victims, in respect of which she was alleged to have embezzled funds. Her appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed. She filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court on 6 November 2019 and this application for bail pending that appeal, relying on the considerations in Arvind Patel v Uganda and offering four sureties.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant should be granted bail pending the hearing and determination of her appeal to the Supreme Court.
2. Whether there is any constitutional basis for granting bail to a person who has already been convicted of a criminal offence.

Orders

• Application for bail pending appeal declined.
• The applicant should continue serving her sentence.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (15)

• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.2
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.23(1)(a)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.28(1)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.126(2)
• Supreme Court Rules r.6(2)(a)
• Supreme Court Rules r.6(2)(b)
• Supreme Court Rules r.42(1)
• Supreme Court Rules r.43
• Criminal Procedure Code Act s.40(1)
• Criminal Procedure Code Act s.40(2)
• Criminal Procedure Code Act s.40(3)
• Criminal Procedure Code Act s.40(4)
• Criminal Procedure Code Act s.40(5)
• Criminal Procedure Code Act s.40(6)
• Trial on Indictments Act s.132(4)

Cases cited (8)

• Arvind Patel v Uganda (Criminal Application No. 1 of 2003)
• Kimeze Jeremiah v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application No. 12 of 2019)
• Sserunkuuma Edrisa v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application No. 09 of 2019)
• Ssegujja Danny & Anor v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application No. 05 of 2019)
• Sumbu Jean Louis v Uganda (Criminal Application No. 1 of 2019)
• Kyeyune Mitala Julius v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application No. 4 of 2017)
• Uganda v Col (Rtd) Dr. Kiiza Besigye (Constitutional Reference No. 20 of 2005)
• Magombe (supra)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Kitgum Municipal Council & 4 Others v Adokorach & 14 Others (Civil Appeal No. 83 of 2019)

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