Seguya & Another v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application 139 of 2022)

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

Held that bail application dismissed where sureties were not substantial enough to ensure applicants' attendance at trial. Court found most sureties too young and their occupations (hair dressers and builders) indicated insufficient social economic standing to meet monetary obligations if bond forfeited. Matter fixed for hearing as applicants already committed to High Court.

Outcome

Applicants to remain on remand pending trial

Facts

The applicants, Seguya Richard and Bukenya Umar, were charged with aggravated robbery and committed to the High Court for trial. They applied for bail under Article 23(6)(a), 28(1), 28(3)(a) and Section 44(c) of the Constitution and sections 14(1) and 15 of the Trial on Indictments Act. The first applicant presented three sureties: an aunt who owns a restaurant, a maternal aunt who is a hair dresser, and a neighbor who is a builder. The second applicant presented three sureties: his father who is a builder, his fiancée who is a hair dresser, and his brother who is a businessman dealing in onions. The State Attorney opposed the application, arguing that the applicants had been committed to trial with credible evidence, faced a maximum penalty of death, were likely to abscond, and had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances. The State also noted the applicants did not attach tenancy agreements or proof of land ownership, and the sureties' social economic standing was not adequately demonstrated.

Issues

1. Whether the applicants should be granted bail pending trial on aggravated robbery charges.
2. Whether the proposed sureties are substantial enough to ensure the applicants' attendance at trial.

Orders

• Application dismissed.
• Matter fixed for hearing.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (7)

• Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 23(6)(a)
• Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 28(1)
• Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 28(3)(a)
• Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Section 44(c)
• Trial on Indictments Act Cap 23 s.14(1)
• Trial on Indictments Act Cap 23 s.15
• Judicature (Criminal Procedure)(Application) Rules S.I 141-1 Rule 2

Cases cited (2)

• Col (Rtd) Dr. Kizza Besigye v Uganda (Criminal Application No. 83 of 2016)
• Criminal Misc. Application No. 228 of 2005 and Criminal Misc. Application No. 229 of 2005

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

• Administrator General v Semakula and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 140 of 2022)
• Administrator General v Semakula and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 140 of 2022)

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