Share
Kato v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 401 of 2024) [2025] UGHCCRD 10 (17 February 2025)
- Citation
- [2025] UGHCCRD 10
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Gadenya, J
- Case number
- Criminal Miscellaneous Application 401 of 2024
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Gadenya, J
- Case number
- Criminal Miscellaneous Application 401 of 2024
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court considered the applicant's right to bail and the presumption of innocence under Article 23(6) of the Constitution, as well as the discretionary power to grant bail under Section 15(1) of the Trial on Indictments Act. The court evaluated whether the applicant had a fixed abode and provided sufficient identification, as required by Section 16(4) of the Act and Guideline 13(1) of the Bail Guidelines. The applicant failed to provide identification documentation to enable the court to ascertain his identity, making it difficult for the court to satisfy itself as to the correctness of the person before it. The court also considered the suitability of the sureties under Guideline 15, noting the need for documentary proof. In the absence of proper identification, the court was not satisfied that the applicant met the requirements for bail at this stage.
Court disposition
Bail application denied due to failure to provide identification documentation.
Orders
- The application for bail is denied.
- The applicant may reapply for bail upon providing proper identification documentation.
02
Material facts
Parties
Kato Ioram
ApplicantUganda
Respondent Counsel: Ms. Apolot Joy Christine03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Bail Pending Trial
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail pending trial under the Constitution and the Trial on Indictments Act.
- 02
Whether the applicant has satisfied the court regarding fixed abode and identity.
- 03
Whether the sureties presented by the applicant are substantial and suitable.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant contended that the offences are bailable, he has a constitutional right to apply for bail, is presumed innocent, has a fixed place of abode within the court's jurisdiction, has never absconded bail, and has substantial sureties ready to execute a bond to ensure compliance with bail terms.
- Respondent
- The respondent opposed the application on grounds that the applicant is likely to abscond if released on bail, making it difficult to trace him for trial.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Constitution of Uganda, Article 23(6)
Article 23(6) of the Constitution provides for the right to apply for bail and presumption of innocence.
- 02
Trial on Indictments Act, Section 15(1)
Section 15(1) of the Trial on Indictments Act empowers the High Court to grant bail at any stage of proceedings, subject to recognizance.
- 03
Trial on Indictments Act, Section 16(4)
Section 16(4) of the Trial on Indictments Act sets out factors for considering bail, including fixed abode, sound sureties, previous compliance, and pending charges.
- 04
Constitution (Bail Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions, 2022, Guideline 13(1)
Guideline 13(1) of the Constitution (Bail Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions, 2022 lists factors for bail applications, including gravity and nature of offence, antecedents, delay, applicant's condition, likelihood to attend court, and safety.
- 05
Constitution (Bail Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions, 2022, Guideline 15
Guideline 15 of the Bail Guidelines sets out requirements for suitability and documentation of sureties.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court considered the applicant's right to bail and the presumption of innocence under Article 23(6) of the Constitution, as well as the discretionary power to grant bail under Section 15(1) of the Trial on Indictments Act. The court evaluated whether the applicant had a fixed abode and provided sufficient identification, as required by Section 16(4) of the Act and Guideline 13(1) of the Bail Guidelines. The applicant failed to provide identification documentation to enable the court to ascertain his identity, making it difficult for the court to satisfy itself as to the correctness of the person before it. The court also considered the suitability of the sureties under Guideline 15, noting the need for documentary proof. In the absence of proper identification, the court was not satisfied that the applicant met the requirements for bail at this stage.
Obiter and limits
- The flexibility in granting bail accommodates changes in circumstances and risk assessments during proceedings.
- Recognizance bonds serve as both a deterrent against non-appearance and a means of ensuring accountability.
- The court must balance individual rights with public safety concerns when considering bail.
Court disposition
Bail application denied due to failure to provide identification documentation.
- The application for bail is denied.
- The applicant may reapply for bail upon providing proper identification documentation.
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.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)
Judgment
<sup>5</sup> THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA (CRIMINAL DIVISION) CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 4OI OF 2024 (ARISING FROM THE CHIEF MAGISTRATE,S COURT OF NAKAWA CRIMINAL CASE NO. 24 OF 2024)
KATO. IORAM APPI,ICAN't vl:,ttsUS
U(;ANI)A RESP()NI)I]NT
RULING
BF'F'ORF' JUSTICF (]AITT'NYA PAUL WOLIMBWA
1.0.1nlrorl uction
to do so.
1'his Application for Bail Pending Trial was brought under Article 23 (6) ofthe Constitution; Section l4 ofthe Trial on Indictment AclCap23; and, Rule 2 ofthe Judicature (Criminal Procedure) (Applications) Rules S.l.
13. The grounds of the Application as containcd in the Notice of Motion and its Supporting Affidavit are that: 20
- l. The offences the Applicant is chargcd with arc bailablc by this Honourable Court. - 2. It is the Applicant's constitutional right to apply for bail. - 3. The Applicant is presumed innoccnt until provcd guilty or until he pleads guilty. - 4. The Applicant has a fixed place ofabodc within thc jurisdiction ofthis Honorable Court. - 5. The Applicant has not absconded bail bcfore, and does not intend to do so ifreleased. - 6. 'Ihc Applicant has substantial suretics who arc each ready and willingto execute a bond to ensure that he complies with thc bail terms, including attending Court as and when rcquired - 30
7. It is in the interest ofjustice that the Application is allowed
The respondent opposed the application on grounds that the applicanl is likely to abscond and when he does, it will be dilficult to trace him lor trial.
conditions for bail, which allows Judicial OfTicers to consider the specifics ofeach case, including flight risk, potential harm to victims, or interference with witnesses. This discretion helps balance individual rights with public safety concerns.
- 10 3. Encouragement of Fairness: Ily allowing bail applications, this provision promotes fairness in the judicial process. It acknowledgcs that being chargcd with an offence does not equate to guilt and provides an opportunily for individuals to maintain their freedom while awaiting trial. - 75 Summarily, Article 23 (6) (a) is significant because it allows accused persons to remain free while awaiting trial, acknowledges the presumplion ofinnocence, and reinforccs thc principle that liberty should not be curtailed unnecessarily.
Scction l5 (l) [formally section l4(1)l of thc Trial on Indictmcnt Act providcs that:
"The High Courl moy at any slage in the proceedings release the accused person on bail, lhal is to say, on taking/rom him or her a recognizance consisling qf a bond, with or ttithoul surelies, for such qn amount as is reosonable in the circumstances of the case, lo apryar before the court on such a date and at such a lime as is named in lhe bond."
This section empowers the Iiigh Court to grant bail at any stage during proceedings, which has several implications, cncompassing:
- Flexibility in Lcgal Procecdings: 'l-he ability lor the High Court to release an accused person on bail at any point rcflccts an undcrstanding that circumstances can change throughout legal proceedings. 'l'his flcxibility can accommodatc new cvidcnce or changes in risk assessmcnts regarding flight or danger. - 2. Rccognizance Bonds: 'fhe requircmcnt for rccognizance bonds means that individuals can secure their rcleasc by committing financially to appear in court.'l'his mechanism serves as both a deterrent against non-appcarance and a means ofensuring accountability. 95
The applicant argued that he will not abscond if released on bail because he has a fixed place of abode known to court and sureties who arc prepared to exccute a bond and ensure that he complies with the set bail terms.
In considering whether an applicant will abscond ifgranted bail, Scction l6 (4) [formally section l5(4)l ofthe Trial on lndictment Act cnjoins court to consider the following factors:
"(a) llhether the accused has a fixed abode within the jurisdiclion of the court or is ordinarily resident outside Ugando,'
135 (b) Whether the accused has sound securities wilhin the jurisdiction to undertake that the accused shall comply wilh the conditions of his or her bail;
(c) Wether the accused has on a previous occasion when released on bail failed to comply wilh the condilions of his or her bail: and,
(d) Wether there are other charges pending againsl the accused. "
140 This is further emphasizcd by Guidcline l3 (l) ofthe Constitution (Bail Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practicc) Dircctions, 2022, which provides an extensivc list of factors court should take into considering when handling a bail application. Guidelinc l3 (l) of the said Guidelines provide as follows:
"A court shall consider the following in handling o bail application
- 745 a) Gravity of the offence; - b) Nature of the offence; - c) The anlecedents of lhe appliconl so far as they are known,' - d) The possibility of a substantiol deloy of the trial: - e) The applicants age, physical and mental condition; - 150 J) The likelihood of the applicant to attend court - c) The stage of lhe proceedings; - h) Ihe likelihood o/the applicant lo commit an ofence while on bail, - i) The likelihood of the applicant interfering with witnesses - i) The safely of lhe applicanl, lhe communily, and the complainants: - k) Whether the applicant has afixed place ofabode...; 155
185 So, even though the Applicant has provided documentation in court showing his address in terms ofvillage, Parish and District, he neglected to provide any identification documentation for court to ascertain his identity. This makes it difficult for court to identify the applicant and satisfy itsclf as to the correctness ofthe person they are dealing with.
190 ii. SubstantialSurctics
Guideline l5 ofthe Constitution (Bail Guidelines for Courts ofJudicature) (Practice) Directions, 2022 provides that:
"(1). When considering the suitability of a surety, court shall toke inlo account the following fdctors-
195 a) The age oflhe surety:
21,O
- b) Work and residence address of the surety; - c) Character and antecedents ofthe surety: - d) Relationship to lhe accused person: and - e) Any other faclor as the court may deem Jit.
200 (2) Subject to sub paragraph (l), the proposed surety shall provide documentary proof including;
- a) a copy of his/her nalional identity card, passport or aliens identificalion; - b) an introductory lelter from the local council chairperson of the srea where the surely is ordinarily resident; - c) Asylum seeker or refugee regislralion documents issued by the Office of the Prime Minisler. "
The aforementioned Guideline assists thc court in evaluating the appropriateness of sureties provided by an applicant.
The applicant asserts on record that he possesses significant sureties willing to act as guarantors and ensure his appearance for trial. At paragraph l0 of his Affidavit in support, the Applicant presented five sureties as follows:
- l. Mr. Buzibye George Biological Father. - 2. Mrs. Nabiryo Oliva Biological Mother.
Ms. Apolot Joy Christine, Senior Statc Attorncy for the Respondcnt Applicant present Mr. Kagwa Court Clerk The ruling is read.
.,!.^ .l
Gadenya Paul Wolimbwa JUDGE.
255 lTth February 2025
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.