Wakilii

Shibungu William Alias Junubai and Another v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application No. 98 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 316 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second bail application arising from criminal case for murder pending in the High Court
Decision
Applicants remain in custody pending trial for murder

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 dismissed the second bail application filed by two accused persons charged with murder. The court held that while subsequent bail applications may be entertained on fresh grounds or new facts, the applicants failed to prove they had fixed places of abode within the court's jurisdiction. The introduction letters presented by the applicants to establish residence were found to be of doubtful authenticity after the prosecution raised credible allegations that the telephone numbers of the LC1 Chairpersons who purportedly signed the letters were registered to different persons. The court declined to grant bail where it was not fully convinced the applicants would return for trial.

Outcome

Applicants remain in custody pending trial for murder

Facts

The applicants, Shibungu William alias Junubai and Metilo Richard, were charged with murder and committed to the High Court for trial. They filed a first bail application (MA No. 29 of 2025) which was rejected due to inconsistencies in signatures on documents presented to prove they had fixed places of abode. The applicants then filed a second bail application (MA No. 98 of 2025), presenting corrected documents with consistent signatures and relying on the same sureties as in the first application. They submitted introduction letters from LC1 Chairpersons, national identity cards, photographs of their houses, and land purchase agreements to prove residence at Buswalikha Village, Bushiro Sub-County, Bududa District. The prosecution opposed the application, arguing that the telephone numbers listed on the introduction letters were registered to persons other than the LC1 Chairpersons who purportedly signed them, suggesting the letters were forged. At the time of the second application, the applicants had been on pre-trial remand for approximately eight months.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants have presented fresh grounds or new facts to warrant the court entertaining a second bail application after the first was rejected.
  2. Whether the applicants have proved that they have fixed places of abode within the jurisdiction of the court.
  3. Whether the applicants have presented substantial sureties to guarantee their attendance at trial.
  4. Whether it is in the interests of justice to grant the applicants bail pending trial for murder.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Applicants' case to be cause-listed in the next convenient High Court session for trial.

Rules and key headnotes

Bail — Successive Applications — Fresh Grounds Required
When a court rejects a bail application and the accused remains in custody, the court retains a duty to consider subsequent bail applications, but the crux of a subsequent application lies in the existence of fresh arguments or new facts that would necessitate reopening the question of bail that was refused on the first attempt.
Bail — Fixed Place of Abode — Proof Required
To prove that a bail applicant has a fixed place of abode, the applicant must adduce evidence to satisfy the court that he or she had a place where he or she was residing before arrest with some degree of permanency, which can be proved through evidence of ownership such as proof of payment of utility bills, land purchase agreements, letters from clan leaders in case of customary ownership of land, tenancy agreements, or land certificates of title.
Affidavit Evidence — Trial by Ambush — Procedural Fairness
It is procedurally improper for a party to raise allegations of forgery during oral submissions when such allegations were not pleaded in the affidavit in reply, as this constitutes trial by ambush and deprives the opposing party of the right to respond through evidence.
Bail — Judicial Discretion — Standard of Proof
Bail should be granted only where the court is fully convinced that the applicants will return to court for trial if released on bail. Among other considerations, the court must be fully persuaded that the applicant has a fixed place of abode. Where the court has reservations about the authenticity of documents presented to prove residence, it is not persuaded that the applicant has proved to the satisfaction of the court that he or she has a fixed place of abode.
Right to Bail — Constitutional Framework
The right to apply for bail is a fundamental right under Article 23(6)(a) of the Constitution, premised on the presumption of innocence under Article 28(3)(a). These principles are integral to the right to a fair hearing, which is non-derogable under Article 44. A person charged with a criminal offence is presumed innocent and entitled to a speedy trial, and should not be kept in detention unnecessarily for long before trial.

Legislation cited (15)

Cases cited (6)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Shibungu William Alias Junubai and Another v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application No. 98 of 2025) [2026] UGHC 316 (9 April 2026)
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.