Share
Maganda Charles Dhabasadha V Uganda (Crim. Misc. Appn. No.16 of 2019) [2019] UGHC 11 (12 July 2019)
- Citation
- [2019] UGHC 11
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Panel
- Luswata, J
- Case number
- Crim. Misc. Appn. No.16 of 2019
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Panel
- Luswata, J
- Case number
- Crim. Misc. Appn. No.16 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 applicant's affidavit was defective and his testimony inconsistent, his grave medical conditions (HIV, TB, Hepatitis B) constituted exceptional circumstances justifying bail. The court acknowledged the risk of contagion to other inmates and the inhumanity of continued detention under such health conditions. However, due to concerns about the applicant's credibility and risk of absconding, the court imposed stringent conditions for bail, including production of additional sureties from both his place of work and home, letters from local councils, and a substantial cash bail. The court balanced the applicant's constitutional rights and health needs against the need to ensure his attendance at trial and the integrity of the judicial process.
Court disposition
Bail granted with stringent conditions.
Orders
- Applicant to produce an extra surety from his place of work in Iganga.
- Applicant to produce another surety residing with him at his home in Lugolole 'A'.
- Applicant to provide two letters from Local Councils: one from his place of work and one from his home in Lugolole.
- Applicant to pay a cash bail of UGX 3,000,000 before release.
- Each surety to be bonded in UGX 5,000,000 (not cash).
- All requirements to be filed and brought to the judge's attention within 14 days before release.
02
Material facts
Parties
Maganda Charles Dhabasadha
ApplicantUganda
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Cash Bail Amount: UGX 3,000,000
- Surety Bond Amount (each): UGX 5,000,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Bail Application Pending Trial
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicant has established exceptional circumstances justifying release on bail pending trial.
- 02
Whether the applicant poses a flight risk if released on bail.
- 03
Whether the applicant's affidavit and testimony are credible and sufficient for bail consideration.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant argued that he suffers from grave illnesses including HIV, TB, and Hepatitis B, which require strict medical monitoring and pose a risk of contagion to other inmates. He asserted that these constitute exceptional circumstances warranting his release on bail. He also presented sureties and claimed to have a fixed place of abode.
- Respondent
- The respondent (State) argued that the applicant's affidavit was defective as it was not commissioned, lacked a certificate of translation, and contained inconsistencies with his oral testimony. The State raised concerns about the applicant's credibility, his true residence, and the risk of absconding if released.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Article 23(6)(a) and 28(3) of the Constitution; Sections 14 and 15 of the Trial on Indictments Act
An accused person has a constitutional right to apply for bail, but must demonstrate exceptional circumstances for release pending trial in capital offences.
- 02
Judicial discretion under Ugandan bail jurisprudence
The court retains discretion to grant or deny bail, considering factors such as the applicant's health, risk of flight, and credibility of sureties.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that although the applicant's affidavit was defective and his testimony inconsistent, his grave medical conditions (HIV, TB, Hepatitis B) constituted exceptional circumstances justifying bail. The court acknowledged the risk of contagion to other inmates and the inhumanity of continued detention under such health conditions. However, due to concerns about the applicant's credibility and risk of absconding, the court imposed stringent conditions for bail, including production of additional sureties from both his place of work and home, letters from local councils, and a substantial cash bail. The court balanced the applicant's constitutional rights and health needs against the need to ensure his attendance at trial and the integrity of the judicial process.
Obiter and limits
- The court expressed concern over the use of defective affidavits, especially by illiterate applicants, and emphasized the responsibility of advocates to ensure accuracy and proper commissioning.
- The court noted that keeping a gravely ill inmate in prison pending trial may be inhuman and dangerous to other inmates.
Court disposition
Bail granted with stringent conditions.
- Applicant to produce an extra surety from his place of work in Iganga.
- Applicant to produce another surety residing with him at his home in Lugolole 'A'.
- Applicant to provide two letters from Local Councils: one from his place of work and one from his home in Lugolole.
- Applicant to pay a cash bail of UGX 3,000,000 before release.
- Each surety to be bonded in UGX 5,000,000 (not cash).
- All requirements to be filed and brought to the judge's attention within 14 days before release.
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 JINJA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.16 OF 2019 (ARISING FROM IGANGA CRIMINAL CASE 134 OF 2018)
MAGANDA CHARLES DHABASADHA:::::::::::::::: APPLICANT
VERSUS
UGANDA :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT
RULING BEFORE: HON. LADY JUSTICE EVA K. LUSWATA
I have carefully considered this application, which is an application for bail pending trial.
Under Article 23(6) (a) and 28(3) of the Constitution, the applicant has a right to apply for bail, giving reasons why he should be released to attend his trial outside prison.
According to Sections 14 and 15 of the TIA, the law requires that he presents exceptional circumstances for his release, for example grave illness or advanced age etc. Even then, it remains his constitutional right to apply for bail. And as pointed out by State, it is still my discretion to release him.
This applicant has presented strong reason for his release on bail. It is shown that he is HIV positive on medication and also a patient of TB and Hepatitis B, which according to the medical superintendent of Iganga Hospital are highly contagious and require strict monitoring. Also the officer in charge Iganga prison, has supported that diagnosis, and in addition indicated that it is a serious case because of the fear of contamination or infecting other inmates.
This application was supported by an affidavit. It was raised by the State, and I confirmed, that the affidavit was not commissioned yet it appeared to be made by an illiterate who appended their thumb print. No certificate of translation was attached to his affidavit. Indeed upon questioning, the applicant conceded that he cannot read, or write and he does not understand the contents of the motion or the affidavit in support. The legal decision to be done then would have been, for me to dismiss this application. However, I perused it and I appreciated the gravity of its contents. So instead of discarding the application all together, I put the applicant on oath, and he undertook to speak the truth. So I believe what he has said on oath is the truth.
Much of the applicant's testimony in court contrasts with what he had stated in the affidavit, which would mean this Court, was being led to release a person charged with a very serious offence, on a substantially false affidavit, and for that, I take great exception. I would blame both the applicant and the advocate, but more so, the applicant, because I wish to believe that an advocate would record what has been stated by the client.
However, since the applicant is professed to be illiterate and has stated he cannot read or understand what is contained in his affidavit, the Court cannot for certain conclude that he can stand by the contents of his affidavit.
Going by his testimony in court, it appears that the applicant is no longer resident in Lugolole, Baitambogwe Sub-County in Mayuge. Although he has confirmed it his mother lives there, that is the family home and he is on working duty in Iganga. This is information that should have appeared in the affidavit. He has stated that he lives with one Isabirye Samson at Bugumba, for reasons of work. He has stated that he is a casual labourer, yet I noticed that in the affidavit he called himself a small scale business man dealing in house hold items. Also it appears that the facts of his arrest defer greatly to what he allegedly stated in his affidavit. In the affidavit he had stated that he was arrested at Nawampendo Trading Center, but he has confirmed that he was actually arrested from Kabayingiire at his sister's place.
The importance of these facts, are interpreted in line with the cardinal rule that release on bail, can only happen where the court is convinced that the applicant is not a flight risk. So, when I see untruths especially, to do with residence and the issues of arrest, then I must make my decision with much caution.
This applicant needs to show more that he will return and answer bail. I would have liked to see a surety from Iganga, his stated place of work, and somebody who actually lives with him in his parent's home. I would also like to see, a letter of the LC of Lugolole where his parents reside, and another letter from the LC where he works. At the same time, I have voiced my concern that keeping this man in prison pending his trial, with the strong evidence of his illness, will be inhuman and at the same time a danger to the other inmates.
I am therefore allowing the application but with conditions;
a) Before his release, the applicant must produce an extra surety from his place of work in Iganga, who can confirm that even as he works, he can be followed up to attend his trial.
- b) Secondly, another surety who resides with him when he returns home in Lugolole 'A'. - c) I will also require two letters of LCs, one from his place of work, and one from his home in Lugolole. - d) He shall be released after paying a cash bail of Shs. 3,000,000/= (three million shillings only). - e) The sureties are bonded in Shs. 5,000,000/= (five million shillings only) each, not cash. - f) Those requirements must be place on the court file and brought to my attention before the applicant's release within 14 days from today. Upon my directions, a production warrant shall issue.
I so order
Signed
EVA K. LUSWATA JUDGE 12/7/2019
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.