Download

Uganda Judgment

HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)

Kasajja v Uganda (Misc. Application No. 7 of 1993) [1994] UGHCCRD 2 (5 January 1994)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The application for bail is denied due to the seriousness of the charges and the large amount of public money allegedly lost. The court finds that these factors outweigh the applicant's arguments for release. However, the applicant is not barred from reapplying for bail after 240 days from the date of remand, as provided by statute. The court also directs that the pending criminal case should be heard expeditiously to avoid further delay.

Court disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for bail is dismissed.
  • The applicant is free to apply for bail after the expiry of 240 days from the date of remand under section 74A of the Magistrates Courts Act as amended.
  • The hearing of the pending criminal case before the chief magistrate's court at Jinja should commence as soon as practicable, and at any rate before the end of January 1994.

02

Material facts

Parties

Anthony Kasajja

Applicant Counsel: Okalang

Uganda

Respondent Counsel: Wamasebu

Amounts and remedies

  • Number of Counts Charged: 8

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Bail Application

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicant seeks bail under section 75(3)(b) of the Magistrates Courts Act and relevant provisions of the Trial Indictments Decree. He argues that inquiries are complete, and he should not be held in custody indefinitely. The applicant relies on his affidavit and asserts his right to bail, especially given the delays in commencing trial.
Respondent
The respondent opposes bail, citing the gravity of the charges—eight counts of causing financial loss to the government under section 258(1) of the Penal Code Act as amended by Statute No.5 of 1987. The respondent emphasizes the huge amount of public money involved and the seriousness of the alleged offences.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Section 75(3)(b) Magistrates Courts Act

    Bail may be denied where the charges are grave and involve substantial public funds.

  2. 02

    Section 74A Magistrates Courts Act as amended by Statute 6 of 1990

    The applicant may reapply for bail after 240 days from the date of remand.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The application for bail is denied due to the seriousness of the charges and the large amount of public money allegedly lost. The court finds that these factors outweigh the applicant's arguments for release. However, the applicant is not barred from reapplying for bail after 240 days from the date of remand, as provided by statute. The court also directs that the pending criminal case should be heard expeditiously to avoid further delay.

Obiter and limits

  • It is unfortunate that the accused has not been tried despite inquiries being completed long ago.
  • The case was fixed for hearing on several occasions but has never commenced for reasons that are not sound.
  • In the interests of justice, the hearing of the case should commence as soon as practicable, and at any rate before the end of January 1994.

Court disposition

application dismissed

  • The application for bail is dismissed.
  • The applicant is free to apply for bail after the expiry of 240 days from the date of remand under section 74A of the Magistrates Courts Act as amended.
  • The hearing of the pending criminal case before the chief magistrate's court at Jinja should commence as soon as practicable, and at any rate before the end of January 1994.

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

[1994] UGHCCRD 2

HON. JUSTICE BEKOKO.

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT JINJA MISC. APPLICATION NO.7 OF 1993 ORIG. MJ.542 OF 1993

RULING

ANTHONY KASAJJA::::::::::::::::::: betalamoo V E R S U S UGANDA ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: BEFORE: THE HON. MR. JUSTICE C. M. KATO

This is an application, by the applicant Anthony Kasajja, for bail. The application is by a notice of motion dated $22/1/93$ and it is supported by the applicant's own affidavit dated 23/11/93. Although the notice of motion itself does not mention the law under which it was lodged, Mr. Okalang the learned counsel for the applicant informed the court that the application had been based on the Provisions of section 75(3)(b) of M. C. A. and section of T. I. D.

Hoidw.

The applicant lodged this application after a similar application had been presented before the chief magistrate Jinja and it had o been rejected on a number of grounds. The applicant is charged before magistrate's court at Jinja with 8 counts each of which is for causing financial loss to the government contrary to section 258(1) of the Penal Code Act as amended by Statute No.5 of 1987.

Upon a careful consideration of the application, the affidavit of the applicant, the weight arguments of both counsel and the charges preferred against the applicant I have come to the conclusion that this application cannot succeed in view of the gravity of the charges and the huge amount of public money involved.

$10.2 - 1$

The application is accordingly dismissed. This decision, however, should not operate as a bar to prevent the applicant from taking advantage of the provisions of section 74A of M. C. A. as amended by Statute 6 of 1990, he is free to apply for bail after the expiry of 240 days from the date he was remanded. $\mathbf{M} = \mathbf{M} \mathbf{M} \mathbf{A}$

$\mathcal{L}$

Since the inquiries in this case were completed long ago it is only unfortunate that the accused has not been tried up Records on the file of the chief magistrate show that to now. the case was fixed for hearing on a number of cocassions but for some reasons, some of which are not sound at all, the case has never taken off. In interests of justice it is directed that the hearing of the case which is pending before the chief magistrate's court at Jinja should commence as soon as it is practicable at any rate before the end of January, 1994. So it is ordered, which was a sale

> 概 C. M. KATO JUDGE $5/1/94$

Statistics

5/1/94: Applicant/accused present.

at he than from the

This of Land and the A wa

Sycamo

Wamasebu for respondent. Wamasebu for respondent. Okalang for applicant absent. Baligeya court clerk. 🐭 💎

poesd used her inits flag, add inni i name di

Applicant: The Ruling should be read in the absence of my counsel.

Court: Ruling is delivered in the absence of applicant's counsel but in the presence of the applicant.

> C. M. KATO JUDGE $5/1/94$

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.

Section 75(3)(b) Magistrates Courts Act

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Section 74A Magistrates Courts Act as amended by Statute 6 of 1990

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Section 258(1) Penal Code Act as amended by Statute No.5 of 1987

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.