Wakilii

Ssentongo Andrew Alias Ssembatya Joshua Alias Ponsiano Mirimu v Uganda [2026] UGHCICD 4

High Court · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for bail pending trial by an accused person remanded on terrorism charges and not yet committed to the High Court
Decision
Applicant released on mandatory bail pending trial on stated conditions, including cash bail of UGX 2,000,000, one approved surety bonded at UGX 50,000,000, monthly reporting, residence and travel restrictions

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 Court held that where an accused person charged with an offence triable only by the High Court has been on remand for more than 180 days without committal, release on bail is mandatory under Article 23(6)(c) of the Constitution, and the Court's only remaining function is to fix reasonable conditions directed at securing attendance. The applicant, charged with terrorism and terrorism financing and remanded for over two years without committal, satisfied this requirement. The Court found he had a fixed place of abode confirmed by an LC1 letter and the sureties, and that of three proposed sureties only his mother was substantial; the other two were ignorant of basic facts about him. Bail granted on conditions.

Outcome

Applicant released on mandatory bail pending trial on stated conditions, including cash bail of UGX 2,000,000, one approved surety bonded at UGX 50,000,000, monthly reporting, residence and travel restrictions

Facts

The applicant was arrested on 18 March 2023 on allegations of terrorism and terrorism financing contrary to sections 6 and 9 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, and was arraigned before the Chief Magistrates Court at Buganda Road on 23 June 2023 and remanded. By the time of filing the bail application he had spent about two years and four months on remand without being committed to the High Court for trial. He deposed that he had a fixed place of abode at Sofia B Village, North East B Ward, Eastern Division, Busia District, had no other pending charges or criminal record, and presented three sureties: his mother (a bar owner), and two men claiming to be his maternal uncles. The State opposed the application, contending that the applicant was a flight risk facing a capital charge involving personal violence and national security, that his place of abode and sureties were not proved, that the sureties' introduction letters were general and their identity cards expired, and that the sureties could freely cross into Kenya. The State did not dispute that the applicant had not been committed to the High Court.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant, having been on remand for more than 180 days without committal on an offence triable only by the High Court, is entitled to mandatory release on bail under Article 23(6)(c) of the Constitution.
  2. Whether the applicant has a fixed place of abode within the jurisdiction of the Court.
  3. Whether the sureties presented by the applicant are substantial and sound enough to secure his compliance with bail conditions.

Orders

  • Application for bail granted.
  • The Applicant is granted cash bail of UGX 2,000,000.
  • Masibo Janet Nabuduwa, the Applicant's mother, is approved as surety and bonded to a non-cash bond of UGX 50,000,000.
  • The Applicant shall report to the Deputy Registrar of this Court on the 20th day of each month, or the next working day where that date falls on a weekend or public holiday.
  • The Applicant shall reside at Sofia B Village, North East B, Eastern Division, Busia District during the pendency of bail.
  • The Applicant is prohibited from travelling outside Uganda, including crossing to Kenya, without prior permission of the Court obtained through the Deputy Registrar.
  • The Deputy Registrar shall inform the immigration authorities of the travel restrictions and conditions.

Rules and key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Article 23(6)(c) — Mandatory Bail After 180 Days on Remand Without Committal
A person charged with an offence triable only by the High Court who has been remanded in custody for more than one hundred and eighty days without committal to the High Court is entitled to mandatory release on bail, and the court's only remaining duty is to set such conditions as it considers reasonable.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Bail — Purpose and Content of Bail Conditions
Where release on bail is mandatory, bail conditions must be directed solely at ensuring that the accused does not abscond and attends court when required, and are principally guided by whether the applicant has a fixed place of abode and whether he has substantial sureties.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Bail — Proof of Fixed Place of Abode
A fixed place of abode is sufficiently established where the applicant's stated residence is confirmed by an introduction letter from the Local Council I of the area and by the testimony of the sureties presented in court.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Bail — Substantiality of Sureties — Paragraph 15 of the Bail Guidelines
The substantiality of a proposed surety is assessed by reference to the surety's age, work and residence address, character and antecedents, relationship to the accused and any other relevant factor, supported by documentary proof such as a national identity card and a Local Council I introduction letter.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Bail — Sureties Unfamiliar with the Accused Are Not Substantial
A proposed surety who, on examination, is unable to state basic matters such as the accused person's name, occupation or the charges he faces, or the identity of the relatives through whom the claimed relationship arises, is not a substantial surety, whereas a close relative who lived with and regularly visits the accused and understands the duty of a surety may be approved.

Legislation cited (14)

Cases cited (5)

  • Mugisha Ronald versus Uganda
  • Masabo Geoffrey v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 0030 of 2016)
  • Aganyira Albert v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 0071 of 2013)
  • Ssepajjwa Abdul versus Uganda [1997] HCB 11
  • General David Ssejjusa v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 0015 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ssentongo Andrew Alias Ssembatya Joshua Alias Ponsiano Mirimu v Uganda [2026] UGHCICD 4 (6 July 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.