Wakilii

Odeke George v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.247 of 2007) (Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.247 of 2007)

High Court · [2008] UGHC 38 · 2008 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Bail application pending trial for defilement charge committed to High Court in 2005
Decision
Applicant remanded in custody pending trial, with liberty to renew bail application if trial does not commence by 30 April 2008

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

Bail application dismissed. Although the court acknowledged the inordinate and unexcused delay since 2004 violated the right to speedy trial under Article 28(1), it declined to grant bail on grounds that the applicant's credibility was doubtful, having thumb-printed rather than signed his affidavit and being unable to name subjects taught at his claimed educational level. The court indicated the applicant could renew his application if trial did not commence by end of April 2008.

Outcome

Applicant remanded in custody pending trial, with liberty to renew bail application if trial does not commence by 30 April 2008

Facts

The applicant George Odeke was charged with defilement contrary to section 129(1) of the Penal Code, alleged to have occurred in November 2004 at Naguru Mobile Police Unit Barracks in Kampala. He was committed to the High Court for trial in 2005. By February 2008 he had been in custody for over three years without trial. The DPP indicated readiness to proceed in April 2008. The applicant applied for bail on grounds of the right to apply for bail under Article 26(6)(a) and violation of the right to speedy trial under Article 28(1) and 28(3)(a). The applicant thumb-printed rather than signed his affidavit, claiming prison authorities denied him a pen. He claimed to be a secondary school Year II student but could not name any subjects taught at that level when questioned by the court.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant should be released on bail pending trial having been in custody since 2004 without trial.
  2. Whether the delay in proceeding to trial violated the applicant's right to a speedy trial under Article 28(1) of the Constitution.
  3. Whether the court should exercise its discretion to grant bail where the applicant's credibility is in doubt.

Orders

  • Bail application rejected.
  • Accused remanded in custody pending trial.
  • Accused to be brought before court not later than 30 April 2008 if trial has not commenced by then.
  • Liberty granted to renew bail application if trial has not commenced by end of April 2008.

Rules and key headnotes

Bail Applications — Exercise of Judicial Discretion — Constitutional Court Ruling on Discretion
Following the Constitutional Court's ruling in Uganda v Besigye (Constitutional Reference No. 20 of 2005), the court has discretion whether or not to release an accused person on bail pending determination of the case.
Right to Speedy Trial — Inordinate Delay — Violation of Article 28(1)
Where an accused person has been held in custody for over three years without trial commencing, such delay is inordinate and unexcused and violates the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 28(1) of the Constitution.
Bail Applications — Discretion to Refuse — Credibility of Applicant — Likelihood to Honour Bail
The court may exercise its discretion to refuse bail where the applicant's conduct raises doubt as to whether he would honour bail if granted, notwithstanding that the accused enjoys the presumption of innocence and is not required to establish his innocence at the bail stage.
Bail Applications — State's Duty — Indefinite Remand Without Trial
The State is not entitled to remand an accused person in custody indefinitely. If the prosecution cannot proceed with trial within a reasonable time, the accused should have the right to be released on bail pending trial.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (1)

  • Uganda v 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.

Odeke George v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.247 of 2007) (Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.247 of 2007) [2008] UGHC 38 (24 February 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.