Download

Uganda Judgment

HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)

Arinaitwe v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 173 of 2024) [2024] UGHCCRD 51 (6 June 2024)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court found that the applicant, having already been committed to the High Court for trial in Session Case No. 525 of 2023, no longer qualified for mandatory bail under Article 23(6)(c) of the Constitution. The constitutional and guideline provisions on mandatory bail apply only to accused persons who have been on remand for 180 days without committal. Since committal had occurred, the applicant's continued detention was lawful, and the application for mandatory bail could not succeed. The application was therefore dismissed.

Court disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for mandatory bail is dismissed.

02

Material facts

Parties

Arinaitwe Godson

Applicant

Uganda

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Mandatory Bail

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicant argued that he was charged with Aggravated Defilement and has been on remand since 11th May 2022 without committal, thus qualifying for mandatory bail under Article 23(6)(c) of the Constitution and the relevant Bail Guidelines.
Respondent
The respondent established through the court case management system that the applicant had already been committed to the High Court for trial under Session Case No. 525 of 2023, thereby disqualifying him from mandatory bail under the cited constitutional provision.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Article 23(6)(c) of the Constitution of Uganda

    A person charged with an offence triable only by the High Court who has been remanded for 180 days without committal is entitled to mandatory bail.

  2. 02

    Clause 10(1) and 10(3) of The Constitution (Bail Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions 2022

    Mandatory release on bail for offences triable by the High Court shall be granted only by the High Court, and only if the accused has not yet been committed for trial.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court found that the applicant, having already been committed to the High Court for trial in Session Case No. 525 of 2023, no longer qualified for mandatory bail under Article 23(6)(c) of the Constitution. The constitutional and guideline provisions on mandatory bail apply only to accused persons who have been on remand for 180 days without committal. Since committal had occurred, the applicant's continued detention was lawful, and the application for mandatory bail could not succeed. The application was therefore dismissed.

Obiter and limits

  • The provisions on mandatory bail are couched in mandatory terms but are subject to the procedural requirement that committal must not have occurred.
  • Only the High Court may grant mandatory bail for offences triable exclusively by it.

Court disposition

application dismissed

  • The application for mandatory bail is dismissed.

Source and reliance status

HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Source document

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)

Judgment

[2024] UGHCCRD 51

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

CRIMINAL MISC. APPL. No. 173 of 2024

ARINAITWE GODSON

APPLICANT $\begin{smallmatrix}&&&&&&&1\\0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0$

Versus

UGANDA

RESPONDENT $\begin{smallmatrix}&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&$

BEFORE: HON. MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ELUBU RULING

This application is commenced under Articles 23 (6) (a) and 28 (3) (a) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda; Sections 14 (1) and 15 (1) (b) of the Trial on Indictments Act; and Clause 10 (1) of The Constitution (Bail Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions 2022

The applicant, Arinaitwe Godson, seeks an order that he be released on mandatory bail.

The grounds on which the application is based are set out in the Notice of Motion and elaborated in affidavit sworn by the applicant.

He states that he was charged with the offence of Aggravated Defilement contrary to Sections 129 (3) and (4) of the Penal Code Act. That he was remanded on the

11<sup>th</sup> of May 2022. That he has been in detention on remand without committal. On this basis the applicant seeks a mandatory release on bail.

It has however been established from the court case management information system that the applicant was committed to the High Court and his High Court Session Case No. 525 of 2023.

Determination

This application is made on the premise that the applicant qualifies for mandatory bail. Because the applicant was charged with the offence of Aggravated Defilement contrary to Sections 129 $(3)$ and $(4)$ of The PCA, which is only triable by the High Court, then the relevant provision of the Constitution is Article 23 (6) (c) which states that,

Where a person is arrested in respect of a criminal offence in the case of an offence triable only by the High Court, if that person has been remanded in custody for one hundred and eighty days before the case is committed to the High Court, that person shall be released on bail on such conditions as the court considers reasonable.

Clause 10 (1) of The Constitution (Bail Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions 2022 reproduces the above article of the constitution.

This Court notes that the provisions are couched in mandatory terms.

The procedural provision is Clause 10 (3) of the above Guidelines which stipulates,

For the avoidance of doubt, mandatory release on bail for offences triable by the High Court under Article 23 (6) (c) of the Constitution shall be granted only by the High Court.

$\overline{2}$

I have perused the court record and checked with the court case database, and established that indeed, the applicant has been committed to the high court for his trial. The matter was entered in the court database as High Court Session Case No. 525 of 2023.

For release under Article 23 (6) (c) of the Constitution to be effected, the applicant should not have been committed to the High Court for trial. In view of the fact that he has now been committed, then he does not qualify for mandatory release on bail.

For that reason, this application must fail and is dismissed.

Michael Elubu Judge 06.06.2024

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, Articles 23(6)(a), 23(6)(c), 28(3)(a)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Trial on Indictments Act, Sections 14(1), 15(1)(b)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

The Constitution (Bail Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions 2022, Clause 10(1), 10(3)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Penal Code Act, Sections 129(3), 129(4)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this JurisAssist collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.