Share
Atwijyukire Miria & Another v Uganda (Criminal Application No.79 of 2019) [2020] UGHC 7 (24 January 2020)
- Citation
- [2020] UGHC 7
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Panel
- Musa Ssekaana, J
- Case number
- Criminal Application No.79 of 2019
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Panel
- Musa Ssekaana, J
- Case number
- Criminal Application No.79 of 2019
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that although the applicants are presumed innocent and have a right to apply for bail, the circumstances of the case—specifically the family land wrangles that led to the alleged murder—create a risk that releasing the applicants could re-ignite conflict and endanger their lives and those of other family members. The court exercised its discretion to deny bail, prioritizing the administration of justice and public safety over the applicants' liberty at this stage.
Court disposition
bail_denied
Orders
- Bail is denied to both applicants.
02
Material facts
Parties
Atwijukyire Miria
ApplicantKabwengyere Darias
ApplicantUganda
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Bail Application Pending Trial
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicants are entitled to bail pending trial for the offence of murder.
- 02
Whether the circumstances of the case justify the exercise of judicial discretion to grant bail.
- 03
Whether release on bail would endanger the applicants or public interest.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicants argue that they are presumed innocent until proven guilty, have a fixed place of abode within the jurisdiction, have substantial sureties, have been on remand for over nine months, and that it is fair and just to grant bail as they cannot be compensated for suffering if acquitted.
- Respondent
- The respondent opposes bail, citing the seriousness of the offence, the potential risk to the applicants and their family due to ongoing land wrangles, and the possibility that release could re-ignite family conflict and endanger lives.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Article 28(3) Constitution of the Republic of Uganda
Every person is presumed innocent until proved guilty or pleads guilty.
- 02
Article 23(6)(a) Constitution of the Republic of Uganda
Persons accused of criminal offences have a right to apply for bail.
- 03
Uganda v Kiiza Besigye, Const. Ref No. 20 of 2005
Grant of bail is discretionary and depends on the circumstances of each case.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that although the applicants are presumed innocent and have a right to apply for bail, the circumstances of the case—specifically the family land wrangles that led to the alleged murder—create a risk that releasing the applicants could re-ignite conflict and endanger their lives and those of other family members. The court exercised its discretion to deny bail, prioritizing the administration of justice and public safety over the applicants' liberty at this stage.
Obiter and limits
- Release on bail is not automatic and is subject to judicial discretion based on the merits of each case.
- The interests of justice and public safety may outweigh the presumption of innocence in bail applications for serious offences.
Court disposition
bail_denied
- Bail is denied to both applicants.
Source and reliance status
High Court of 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.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
High Court of Uganda
Judgment
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT MBARARA
MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 79 OF 2019
(Arising from H. C Cr. Case. No. 079 of 2018)
1. ATWIJUKYIRE MIRIA
2. KABWENGYERE DARIAS:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::APPLICANTS
VERSUS
UGANDA::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::RESPONDENT
BEFORE: HON JUSTICE SSEKAANA MUSA
RULING
This is an application for bail pending trial of the applicants who are charged with the offence of Murder contrary to sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act Cap 120. The applicants are alleged to have murdered Agaba Johnson alias Kabeere on the 13th day of November 2018 at Nyakibigi cell Ntungamo District.
Grounds of this application
- 1. The applicants have been charged with the offence of murder C/S 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act but they have neither pleaded guilty nor been proven guilty and are still presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved. - 2. That the applicants have a permanent place of abode at Nyakibigi Cell Kahunga Ward, Western Division in Ntungamo District within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. - 3. That the applicants have substantial sureties who are ready to guarantee their return for trial.
- 4. The applicants have been on remand for over 9 months now. - 5. That it is just fair, reasonable and in the interest of justice that this application be granted in so far as in the event of acquittal the applicants will never be compensated for the suffering they will have gone through while in detention.
According to Article 23 (6) (a) and 28 (3) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, persons accused of criminal offences have a right to apply for bail.
It is trite law that under Article 28(3) of the *Constitution of the Republic of Uganda*, every person is presumed innocent until proved guilty or pleads guilty. Consequently, an accused person should not be kept on remand unnecessarily without trial. In well deserving cases the accused person should be granted bail if he or she fulfils the conditions for his or her release.
An Applicant should not be incarcerated if he or she is unlikely to abscond or interfere with witnesses for the prosecution, has a fixed place of abode, has sound sureties capable of guaranteeing that he or she will comply with the conditions of his or her bail and is willing to abide by all other conditions set by the court.
However, the grant of bail is discretionary to the court *(see Uganda Vs Kiiza Besigye; Const. Ref No. 20 OF 2005).* Whether or not the court is inclined to exercise the discretion whether to grant or not grant bail is a matter depending on circumstances of each particular case to be weighed on individual merits or demerits of the case. It is established that release on bail is not automatic. Whether or not to release the accused on bail is a preserve of the discretion of court.
In this case, the applicants are siblings who have been charged with a capital offence of murder. The applicant state in their respective affidavits that they have a fixed place of abode and both presented two sureties.
However in the circumstances surrounding the alleged offence, the court is hesitant to grant bail to the applicants. According to the summary of case, the alleged offence was a result family land wrangles. Releasing the applicants on bail could re-ignite the land wrangles in the family considering that the family already lost one of the family members.
I am of the considered opinion at this stage that it is not in the best interest of the administration of justice to release the applicants on bail. Release of the applicants at this point in time will endanger their own lives as well as that of other members of their family.
Bail is denied.
I so order.
SSEKAANA MUSA JUDGE 24th January 2020
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.