Download

Uganda Judgment

Supreme Court of Uganda

Magino v Uganda (Criminal Application 1 of 2024) [2024] UGSC 36 (31 July 2024)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The application for bail pending appeal was withdrawn by the applicant through counsel, citing medical reasons that are best managed while in custody. The withdrawal was communicated to the court and supported by medical documentation. The respondent raised no objection. Accordingly, the application was dismissed under Rule 2(2) of the Rules of the Supreme Court, which permits withdrawal of applications before the court. No further consideration of the merits of the bail application was undertaken.

Court disposition

application dismissed (withdrawn)

Orders

  • The application for bail pending appeal is dismissed under Rule 2(2) of the Rules of the Supreme Court.

02

Material facts

Parties

Magino Joseph

Applicant Counsel: Andrew Ssebugwawo

Uganda

Respondent Counsel: Ainebyona Happiness

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal Application / Application for Bail Pending Appeal

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Counsel for the applicant applied to withdraw the application for bail, citing medical reasons best managed while in custody, as supported by a letter to the Registrar and a medical report from the Prisons Medical Superintendent.
Respondent
The respondent did not object to the withdrawal of the application.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Rule 2(2) of the Rules of the Supreme Court

    An applicant may withdraw an application before the court, subject to the court's discretion and applicable procedural rules.

  2. 02

    Article 23(6) of the Constitution; Bail Guidelines, 2022

    The right to apply for bail pending appeal is provided for under Article 23(6) of the Constitution and the Constitution (Bail Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions, 2022.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The application for bail pending appeal was withdrawn by the applicant through counsel, citing medical reasons that are best managed while in custody. The withdrawal was communicated to the court and supported by medical documentation. The respondent raised no objection. Accordingly, the application was dismissed under Rule 2(2) of the Rules of the Supreme Court, which permits withdrawal of applications before the court. No further consideration of the merits of the bail application was undertaken.

Court disposition

application dismissed (withdrawn)

  • The application for bail pending appeal is dismissed under Rule 2(2) of the Rules of the Supreme Court.

Source and reliance status

Supreme 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.

Source document

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Supreme Court of Uganda

Judgment

[2024] UGSC 36

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA

AT KAMPALA

(CORAM: CHIBITA, JSC;)

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. OO1 OF 20.24

t0

MAGINO JOSEPH APPLICANT

VERSUS

o r5 UGANDA:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::RESPONDENT

lAlr appllcatlon Jor ball pendlng appeal arlsing from, crlmlntrl appeal No. 45 of 2O22)

o

-t5

RULING OF MIKE J. CHIBITA, JSC

25 The applicant filed this application by Notice of Motion under the provisions of Rules 6(21(al, 42, 43(ll of the Rules of this Court, Article 23(6) and 126(21 of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda and Rule 19 of the Constitution (Bail Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice)Directions, 2022, seeking that the applicant be released on bail pending the hearing and determination of his Criminal Appeal No.45 of 2022 by this Court.

30 The application was supported by the grounds set out in the affidavit of the applicant. The respondent filed an affidavit in objection to this application.

At the hearing of the application, Mr. Andrew Ssebugwawo represented the applicant, while Ms. Ainebyona Happiness, Chief State Attorney represented the respondent.

IO Counsel for the applicant however, applied to withdraw this application as instructed by the applicant. This, he stated, was due to medical reasons best managed while in custody as elucidated in a letter to the Registrar of this Court dated 2l"t Jwne, 2024 together with the medical report of the Prisons Medical Superintendent. There was no objection from the respondent. In the premises this application is dismissed under Rule 2(2) of the Rules of this Court.

3\ sl Dated at Kampala this day or. J.9.!y.zoz+.

MIKE J. CHIBITA JUSTICE OF THE ST'PRTME COURT

<sup>20</sup> \1t" Q-)r\ \gt.r., \s-\ \$\\_!

o

l5

/\

o a-^

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.

Article 23(6) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Article 126(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Rules 6(2)(a), 42, 43(1), and 2(2) of the Rules of the Supreme Court

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Rule 19 of the Constitution (Bail Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions, 2022

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.