Share
Kimanyi v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 152 of 1993) [1991] UGHC 46 (12 January 1991)
- Citation
- [1991] UGHC 46
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Panel
- Lugayizi, J
- Case number
- Criminal Miscellaneous Application 152 of 1993
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Panel
- Lugayizi, J
- Case number
- Criminal Miscellaneous Application 152 of 1993
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The applicant satisfied the statutory requirements for bail under section 14A of the Trial on Indictments Decree by presenting a Certificate of No Objection from the Director of Public Prosecutions, which constitutes an exceptional circumstance. The applicant also provided two credible sureties, and the State did not object to either the application or the sureties. The court was convinced that the applicant was unlikely to abscond and that the sureties would ensure his return to court. Therefore, the applicant was entitled to bail, subject to the conditions set by the court.
Court disposition
bail granted
Orders
- The applicant is to execute a bond of Ug. shs. 250,000/= cash.
- The applicant shall report to the Central Police Station once every month beginning 10th February 1994 until the case is disposed of or the order is varied.
- Each surety shall execute a bond of Ug. shs. 1,000,000/= not cash.
- The file is to be remitted immediately to the Deputy Registrar (Criminal) for compliance.
02
Material facts
Parties
Julius Kamanyi Mugisa Nyarwa
Applicant Counsel: Mr. Nsubuga-MubiruUganda
Respondent Counsel: Miss Sheila NkwasibweAmounts and remedies
- Applicant Cash Bond: UGX 250,000
- Surety Bond (each): UGX 1,000,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Bail Application Before High Court
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicant has demonstrated exceptional circumstances justifying release on bail.
- 02
Whether the applicant is likely to abscond if released on bail.
- 03
Whether the sureties presented are sufficient and acceptable to the court.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant, through counsel, argued that exceptional circumstances existed justifying his release on bail, specifically the possession of a Certificate of No Objection from the Director of Public Prosecutions. He presented two sureties: his father, a retired civil servant, and his cousin, a marketing officer, both of whom were deemed reliable and able to ensure his return to court. The applicant also assured the court of his intention to reside with his father if granted bail.
- Respondent
- The respondent, represented by the State, did not object to the application for bail or to the sureties presented. The Certificate of No Objection was produced by the State and admitted into evidence, indicating no opposition to the applicant's release on bail.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 14A(1) of the Trial on Indictments Decree
Bail may be granted by the High Court in cases where exceptional circumstances exist and the applicant is unlikely to abscond.
- 02
Section 14A(2) of the Trial on Indictments Decree
Exceptional circumstances include possession of a Certificate of No Objection from the Director of Public Prosecutions.
- 03
Sections 74 and 75 of the Magistrates Court Act 1970
Magistrates Courts cannot grant bail for certain offences unless the accused has been on remand for over 240 days.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The applicant satisfied the statutory requirements for bail under section 14A of the Trial on Indictments Decree by presenting a Certificate of No Objection from the Director of Public Prosecutions, which constitutes an exceptional circumstance. The applicant also provided two credible sureties, and the State did not object to either the application or the sureties. The court was convinced that the applicant was unlikely to abscond and that the sureties would ensure his return to court. Therefore, the applicant was entitled to bail, subject to the conditions set by the court.
Obiter and limits
- The court noted the importance of credible sureties in bail applications and the role of family ties in ensuring compliance with bail conditions.
- The court emphasized the need for prompt compliance with bail orders and directed immediate action by the Deputy Registrar.
Court disposition
bail granted
- The applicant is to execute a bond of Ug. shs. 250,000/= cash.
- The applicant shall report to the Central Police Station once every month beginning 10th February 1994 until the case is disposed of or the order is varied.
- Each surety shall execute a bond of Ug. shs. 1,000,000/= not cash.
- The file is to be remitted immediately to the Deputy Registrar (Criminal) for compliance.
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
I<sup>N</sup> THE HIGH-COURT <sup>O</sup><sup>F</sup> UGANDA AT KAMPALA
MI3C. OR. APPLICATION NO. 152 OF "1993
(ARISING FROM ORIGINAL OR. CASE NO. U "18-17/93 OF BUGANDA ROAD).
JULIUS KAMANYI MUGISA NYARWA :::::::::::::::: APPLICANT VERSUS
, UGANDA :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT. BEFORE: THE <sup>H</sup>ON. MR. JUSTICE E. S. LUGAYISI:
RULING:
The Applicant in this case was charged with the offence of issuing a false cheque contrary to section 364(l)(a) of the Penal Code Act. This happened on the 16th December, 1993, before the Chief Magistrate of Mengo, after which the Applicant was remanded.
Since bail in this type of case cannot be granted by the Magistrates Courts unless the accused has been on remand for a continuous period exceeding two hundred and forty days, the Applicant applied to this Honourable Court for bail through his advocate Mr. Nsubuga-Mubiru. This was done under sections 74 and 75 of the- Tl&glstrates Court Act 1970 and section 14A of the Trial on Indictments Decree.
The said application was brought by way of notice ef motion and supported by an affidavit sworn by the Applicant himself. The gist of the said affidavit was that there existed special circumstances justifying the Applicant's release on bail.
Under section 14A (1) of the Trial on Indictments Decree, a person accused of an offence such as this one the Applicant is accused of cannot be granted, bail by
the High Court unless he proves to the satisfaction of the Court that,
- ,:(a) exceptional circumstances exist justifying his release on bail, and - (b) that he will not absond when released on-bail
Sub-section (2) of the above law defines exceptional circumstances to mean, among other things, the following:
- <sup>C</sup> OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOr - Cb^ ooooooooooooooooooooooooooo or - (c) a certificate of No Objection under his hand from the Director of Public Prosecutions<sup>o</sup>
In this application, it would appear counsel for the Applicant applied for a Certificate of No Objection and the State (through the Director of Public Prosecutions) granted the same<sup>o</sup> This Certificate was produced by Counsel for the State (Miss Sheila Nkwasibwe) at the time of hearing this application and was admitted on record as ''Exhibit I am therefore satisfied that the Applicant herein has shown that exceptional circumstances exist justifying his being releasee on bail<sup>o</sup>
Further, counsel for the Applicant produced two sureties, one of them being the Applicant's father (Mr\* Kyomya Kamanyi) aged <sup>55</sup> years and a retired civil servant<sup>o</sup> The court was informed that the said surety resides at Nsambya estate, House No<sup>0</sup> Bo55 and that before the Applicant was remanded, he was living with this surety under one roofo Assurances were made to the court too that should bail be granted to the Applicant, he will continue to stay with his father at Nsambya estate<sup>o</sup> The second surety was the Applicant'<sup>s</sup> first cousin Mr<sup>o</sup> Eric Musana Mugisha
aged 33 years who resides at Kitintale. He works as a Marketing Officer in a Company called Pine Enterprises Ltd. which is situated at Plot 16/2 Jinja Road.
The State did not object to any of the said sureties. I was satisfied with them too, and believe that they will ensure the Applicant's return to court to answer the charge against him.
In the face of the above therefore, I see no reason why I should deny the Applicant bail. I accordingly grant him bail on the following conditions,
(a) he is to execute a bond of Ug. shs.250,000/= CASH.
- (b) he shall report to the Central Police Station once every month (beginning with the 10th day of February, 1994) until this case is disposed of or this order is varried; and - (c) each of his sureties above shall execute a bond of Ug. Shs.1,000,000/= NOT CASH.
I also direct that this file be immediately remitted to the Deputy Registrar(Cr.) to ensure compliance with the order herein.
> E. S. Lugayigi ( AG. JUDGE $12/1/1994.$
$12/1/94 - 3.19p.m.$ :
Mr. Nsubuga-Mubiru for the Applicant. Miss Sheila Nkwasibwe for the State. Mr. Byamugisha - Court/Clerk.
> E. S. Lugayiti AG. JUDGE $12/1/1994.$
$\overline{3}$
$\overline{a}$
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.