Wakilii

Turyasingura Ronald v Uganda (HCT-27-CR-CM-0021-2026)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 693 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for bail after prior grant was cancelled due to applicant's failure to appear for plea-taking
Decision
Application for bail denied; applicant remanded in custody 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 court denied bail to an applicant charged with malicious damage to property after finding he was a flight risk. Evidence showed the applicant absconded from court during his co-accused's sentencing proceedings on the date his own trial was scheduled, demonstrating he would abscond if released on bail under Section 16(1)(b) of the Trial on Indictments Act.

Outcome

Application for bail denied; applicant remanded in custody pending trial

Facts

The applicant was charged with malicious damage to property contrary to Section 312 of the Penal Code Act. He had been granted bail on 4 December 2023 with conditions to report to court every last Monday of the month, which he complied with. On 18 May 2026, when Criminal Case No. 152 of 2025 was called for hearing and plea-taking, the applicant failed to appear and his prior bail was cancelled. The applicant applied for fresh bail on 5 June 2026. The prosecution adduced evidence through a supplementary affidavit from Margaret Naiga, who testified that she attended sentencing proceedings for Charles Kyagaba (the applicant's co-accused) on the same date and saw the applicant in the courtroom. She stated she witnessed Kyagaba instructing the applicant to leave the court premises to avoid arrest. The applicant denied being served with hearing notice and claimed he was unaware of the proceedings, though his counsel was present in court on the same day.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant satisfied the court that he is entitled to the favourable exercise of judicial discretion under Article 23(6)(a) of the Constitution and Sections 15 and 16 of the Trial on Indictments Act to be granted bail

Orders

  • The application for bail is denied.
  • Applicant to be tried on all offences with which he is charged in the planned upcoming criminal session.
  • Uganda Prisons Service is ordered to offer applicant reasonable facilities to prepare for examinations for which he is registered, that are scheduled to be administered by the Uganda National Examinations Board.

Rules and key headnotes

Bail — Discretionary Bail — Flight Risk as Ground for Refusal
Under Section 16(1)(b) of the Trial on Indictments Act Cap 25, a court may refuse to grant bail to an accused person if he or she does not prove to the satisfaction of the court that he or she will not abscond when released on bail. Evidence that an accused person fled from court proceedings on the scheduled trial date demonstrates flight risk and justifies refusal of bail.
Bail — Constitutional Right to Apply for Bail — Discretionary Nature
Article 23(6)(a) of the Constitution entitles an accused person to apply for bail, but the grant of bail is discretionary rather than mandatory. The court has power to prescribe conditions for bail or to deny bail altogether where the interests of justice require.
Bail — Assessment of Flight Risk — Burden of Proof
Where the prosecution raises flight risk as a ground of objection to bail, the court must assess this independently as part of the overall bail inquiry. The applicant bears the burden of proving that he or she will not abscond when released on bail.
Presumption of Innocence — Application in Bail Proceedings
The constitutional presumption of innocence under Article 28(3)(a) of the Constitution provides that every person charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty or until that person has pleaded guilty. This presumption underpins the right to apply for bail but does not guarantee the grant of bail where other factors militate against release.
Bail — Balancing Individual Liberty and Interests of Justice
In determining bail applications, the court must balance the liberty of the individual against the interests of society in achieving justice. The interests of justice are collective and include the applicant's right to a fair and speedy trial, as well as the right of the community and complainants to see justice administered impartially by the courts.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (6)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Turyasingura Ronald v Uganda (HCT-27-CR-CM-0021-2026) [2026] UGHC 693 (29 June 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.