Wakilii

Ssempijja Muhammad v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 8 of 2023)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 468 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for bail pending trial on murder charge
Decision
Applicant to remain on remand pending trial

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 application for bail. The court held that the sureties presented were not substantial given the gravity of the murder charge, the severity of the potential death sentence created a likelihood of absconding, and no exceptional circumstances were proved to warrant release on bail.

Outcome

Applicant to remain on remand pending trial

Facts

The applicant Ssempijja Muhammad was arrested and charged with murder contrary to sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act. He had been on remand for one year after being committed for trial by the High Court. The alleged murder was committed during mob justice. The applicant applied for bail under Article 23(6) of the Constitution and section 14 of the Trial on Indictments Act, arguing he had a fixed place of abode, substantial sureties, and that delay in prosecution violated his constitutional rights. He presented four sureties: his father aged 50, his uncle, and two siblings aged 23 and 19. The state opposed the application on grounds that the sureties were not substantial, the offence was grave attracting a death sentence, and no exceptional circumstances were proved.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant should be released on bail pending trial for the offence of murder.
  2. Whether the applicant has presented substantial sureties capable of ensuring his attendance at trial.
  3. Whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify the applicant's release on bail.
  4. Whether the applicant is likely to abscond if released on bail.

Orders

  • Application for bail dismissed.
  • The accused person's case shall be cause listed for hearing in one of the nearest convenient sessions.

Rules and key headnotes

Bail — Suitability of Sureties — Age and Substantiality
In determining the suitability of sureties for bail in capital offences, courts must consider whether the sureties are adults in positions of responsibility or so connected to the applicant that they can exert pressure on the applicant to comply with bail conditions. Sureties who are too young in age relative to the gravity of the offence may lack the capacity to compel the accused to report to court, particularly where they are siblings of the accused and have not demonstrated financial standing to forfeit bonds.
Bail — Exceptional Circumstances — Capital Offences
Section 16(3) of the Trial on Indictments Act and paragraph 14(2) of the Constitution (Bail Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) Practice Directions 2022 require proof of exceptional circumstances for bail in capital offences, namely: grave illness certified by a medical officer, a certificate of no objection from the Director of Public Prosecutions, or infancy or advanced age of the accused. These provisions remain in force and have not been repealed.
Bail — Likelihood of Absconding — Gravity of Offence
The gravity of the offence charged and the severity of the potential sentence are relevant factors in assessing the likelihood that an accused person will abscond if released on bail. Where the offence of murder attracts the ultimate penalty of death, this creates a higher likelihood of absconding in fear of the punishment, particularly where sureties are not substantial.
Right to Bail — Discretion of Court — Balancing Rights and Public Interest
The right to apply for bail under Article 23(6)(a) of the Constitution is not absolute and must be balanced against the interests of justice and public interest. The decision to grant bail rests in the discretion of the court, which must consider factors including the presumption of innocence, the right to personal liberty, the applicant's obligation to attend trial, and the need to balance the applicant's rights with the interests of justice.

Legislation cited (15)

Cases cited (12)

  • Col. (Rtd) Dr. Kiiza Besigye v Uganda (Criminal Application No. 20 of 2016)
  • Attorney General v Tumushabe (Constitutional Petition No. 6 of 2004)
  • Lawrence Luzinda v Uganda [1986] HCB 33
  • Foundation for Human Rights Initiative v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 3 of 2009)
  • Obey Christopher & Ors v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application No. 45 of 2015)
  • Uganda v Kiiza Besigye (Constitutional Reference No. 20 of 2005)
  • Foundation for Human Rights Initiative v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 20 of 2006)
  • Col. (Rtd) Kizza Besigye & Abed Lutale Vs. Uganda
  • Mugyenyi Steven v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application No. 65 of 2004)
  • Col. (Rtd) Kizza Besigye & Hafii Obed Lutale v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application No. 113 of 2025)
  • Sher Singh Shekhawat v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 11 of 2023)
  • Makhoha Samuel & 35 Ors v Uganda (Criminal Application No. 24 of 2024)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ssempijja Muhammad v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 8 of 2023) [2025] UGHC 468 (12 June 2025)
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.