Download

Uganda Judgment

HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)

Kalisa and Another v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 244 of 2019) [2022] UGHCCRD 160 (14 July 2022)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The Chief Magistrate's Court of Wakiso erred in cancelling the applicants' bail upon committal to the High Court without affording them a hearing, contrary to the binding interpretation of Section 168(4) of the Magistrates Court Act as set out by the Constitutional Court in Hon Sam Kuteesa & Ors vs A-G. The applicants' right to liberty and to be heard was infringed by the issuance of remand warrants in the absence of a lawful order or sufficient reason. Although the High Court's revisional jurisdiction under Section 50 of the Criminal Procedure Code Act does not generally extend to bail matters, the court is empowered to provide a remedy where a lower court's order results in a violation of constitutional rights. Accordingly, the remand order is set aside and bail is reinstated on the original terms.

Court disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • The order remanding the applicants is set aside.
  • Bail is reinstated on the terms earlier set by the High Court on 14th December 2021.

02

Material facts

Parties

Kalisa John

Applicant Counsel: Kiribwa Simon Peter

Kyazze Christopher

Applicant Counsel: Kiribwa Simon Peter

Uganda

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Revision and Reinstatement of Bail

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicants argue that their bail was unlawfully cancelled by the Chief Magistrate's Court upon committal to the High Court, without any hearing or sufficient reason. They contend that Section 168(4) of the Magistrates Court Act, under which the magistrate purportedly acted, was declared unconstitutional and lacks legal force. The applicants maintain that they complied with all bail conditions and that the remand warrants issued amounted to an illegal cancellation of bail, infringing their constitutional rights.
Respondent
The respondent did not file an affidavit or submissions in reply to the application.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Hon Sam Kuteesa & Ors vs A-G Const Ref 56 of 2011; Article 23(6)(a) of the Constitution

    Bail granted by a court of competent jurisdiction does not automatically lapse upon committal to the High Court for trial.

  2. 02

    Hon Sam Kuteesa & Ors vs A-G Const Ref 56 of 2011; Article 23(6)(a) of the Constitution

    The committing court has power to maintain, grant, or cancel bail for sufficient reason after hearing the parties.

  3. 03

    Kiiza Besigye vs Uganda M.A. 18 of 2022

    The High Court's revisional powers under Section 50 of the Criminal Procedure Code Act do not extend to bail matters.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Chief Magistrate's Court of Wakiso erred in cancelling the applicants' bail upon committal to the High Court without affording them a hearing, contrary to the binding interpretation of Section 168(4) of the Magistrates Court Act as set out by the Constitutional Court in Hon Sam Kuteesa & Ors vs A-G. The applicants' right to liberty and to be heard was infringed by the issuance of remand warrants in the absence of a lawful order or sufficient reason. Although the High Court's revisional jurisdiction under Section 50 of the Criminal Procedure Code Act does not generally extend to bail matters, the court is empowered to provide a remedy where a lower court's order results in a violation of constitutional rights. Accordingly, the remand order is set aside and bail is reinstated on the original terms.

Obiter and limits

  • The absence of a hearing before cancellation of bail is a fundamental procedural irregularity.
  • Section 168(4) of the Magistrates Court Act must be construed in conformity with the Constitution and the decision of the Constitutional Court.

Court disposition

application allowed

  • The order remanding the applicants is set aside.
  • Bail is reinstated on the terms earlier set by the High Court on 14th December 2021.

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

[2022] UGHCCRD 160

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

CRIMINAL MISC. APPL. No. 244 of 2019

(Arising out of Criminal Case No 042 of 2019)

1. KALISA JOHN

2. KYAZZE CHRISTOPHER ::::::::::::::: APPLICANT

*Versus*

UGANDA ::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT

BEFORE: HON. MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ELUBU

RULING

This application is commenced under Articles 23 (6) (a), 28 (3) and 44 (c) of the Constitution of The Republic of Uganda; Sections 14 and 15 of the Trial on Indictment Act; and Sections 14 and 15 of the Judicature Act; Section 50 (b) of The Criminal Procedure Code Act.

The applicants, KALISA JOHN and KYAZZE CHRISTOPHER, seek orders that:

- 1. the order of the learned chief magistrate's court of Wakiso cancelling the applicants bail be revised and set aside - 2. the applicants bail be reinstated as per the terms already ordered and set by this Hon Court in Misc Appln No 184 of 2021.

The grounds on which the applicant has based his prayers are set out in the Notice of Motion and elaborated in an affidavit in support deposed by one Kiribwa Simon Peter, an advocate of the High Court of Uganda.

It is stated that on the 21st of September 2021 the applicants were charged on three counts of the offence of Aggravated Robbery c/ss 285 and 286 (2) of the Penal Code Act. They were thereafter remanded in Kitalya. They filed an application for bail before the High Court which was granted on the 10th of November 2021. That the applicants met all their bail terms including reporting to the Court once every month. That on the 29th of June 2022 they appeared before the Chief Magistrates Court of Wakiso for committal to the High Court for trial. That upon committal the learned trial magistrate cancelled the bail by signing the remand warrants sending the applicants for detention on remand at Uganda Government Prison, Kigo. Though there was no order cancelling their bail, the act of signing remand warrants amounted to cancellation of bail. The applicants state that the learned trial magistrate acted illegally as Section 168 (4) of the Magistrates Court Act, the provision under which she ostensibly acted, was declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court and lacks the force of law. Additionally, the learned trial magistrate did not give the applicants an opportunity to be heard before she took the decision to cancel their bail.

Determination

This court did not have the benefit of either the respondent's affidavit or submissions in reply. On the other hand, the applicant's submissions are on record but will not be reproduced here. I have nevertheless studied and will refer to them in the determination of the issues here.

It is true that on the 21st of September, 2021, both applicants were produced before the Chief magistrates Court Wakiso and charged with three counts of the offence of Aggravated Robbery c/ss 285 and 286 (2) of the Penal Code Act. They were remanded immediately thereafter. That on the 14th of Dec 2021, this Court granted them a release on bail, and they have complied with all the conditions set, including reporting to the Deputy Registrar of the High Court Criminal Division once every month. Criminal summons were issued for the applicants by the Chief Magistrate's Court of Wakiso for

the 29th of June 2022. When they appeared, both applicants were committed to the High Court for trial. That is all the record of the court proceedings for that day indicates.

While the record does not make orders for remand following committal, remand warrants for both applicants were issued and sealed by the Court and both remanded in Uganda Government Prison, Kigo. There is therefore an order of Court to Kigo prison directing the Superintendent of the prison to remand the applicants.

This application for reinstatement of bail is made following that order to remand the applicants.

This Court is aware that Section 168 (4) of the Magistrates Court Act stipulates that if a person committed for trial by the High Court is on bail, without prejudice to his right to apply to the High Court for bail, the bail shall lapse, and the magistrate shall remand him in custody pending trial.

The Constitutional Court of Uganda in Hon Sam Kuteesa & Ors vs A-G Const Ref 56 of 2011 extensively considered the above provision of the MCA and directed as follows:

We hold that pursuant to Article 274 of the Constitution, section 168 (4) of the Magistrate's Courts Act must be construed in such a way as to provide that:

- *(i) Bail granted, by a court of competent jurisdiction, to a person arrested in connection of a criminal case does not automatically lapse by reason only of the fact of that person being committed to the High Court for trial.* - *(ii) Subject to being competently seized of jurisdiction under the law, the court committing an accused person to the High Court for trial, has power derived from Article 23 (6) (a) of the Constitution to maintain bail already granted or to grant bail to an accused person, or to cancel bail for sufficient reason, after hearing the parties concerned on the matter.*

The above holding is binding on this Court.

This Court notes however that this application was commenced under Section 50 of the Criminal Procedure Code Act. It has been has held that The High Court has no powers to consider matters regarding bail under its Revisional powers saved under Section 50 of the Criminal Procedure Code Act (see Kiiza Besigye vs Ug M. A. 18 of 2022).

The foregoing notwithstanding, and as can be seen from the Constitutional Court's holding above, the chief magistrates court of Wakiso clearly acted in error when it cancelled the bail of the applicants upon committal to the high court, without a hearing.

This court is however seized with the jurisdiction to provide a remedy in the matter as the court order remanding the applicants resulted in the infringement of their right to liberty, and a right to be heard, following that earlier release on bail, and it cannot be left to stand.

In the result, the order remanding the applicants is hereby set aside. Bail is reinstated on the terms earlier set by this Court on the 14th of December 2021.

Dated at Kampala this …………..day of July 2022

………………………………

Michael Elubu

Judge

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.

Hon Sam Kuteesa & Ors vs A-G Const Ref 56 of 2011

Case cited

Kiiza Besigye vs Uganda M.A. 18 of 2022

Case cited

Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, Articles 23(6)(a), 28(3), 44(c), 274

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Trial on Indictment Act, Sections 14 and 15

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Judicature Act, Sections 14 and 15

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Criminal Procedure Code Act, Section 50(b)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Penal Code Act, Sections 285 and 286(2)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Magistrates Court Act, Section 168(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.