Share
Mugerwa v Uganda (Revision Cause No. 29 of 2021) [2023] UGHCCRD 18 (27 March 2023)
- Citation
- [2023] UGHCCRD 18
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Muwata, J
- Case number
- Revision Cause No. 29 of 2021
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Muwata, J
- Case number
- Revision Cause No. 29 of 2021
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court held that bail granted by the High Court does not automatically lapse upon committal of the accused for trial in the High Court. The Chief Magistrate had no authority to cancel or override the bail granted by the High Court. The only lawful way to cancel such bail is through the court that granted it, and only upon proof of breach of bail conditions or the law. The applicant's bail was therefore unlawfully cancelled, and the High Court ordered its reinstatement on the original terms.
Court disposition
application allowed
Orders
- Bail granted to the applicant by the High Court on 14th March 2022 is reinstated on the original terms.
- The applicant shall report to the Deputy Registrar of the Criminal Division in fulfillment of the bail terms imposed by the High Court.
- The applicant does not need to renew any of the bail terms.
02
Material facts
Parties
Mugerwa Hamis
Applicant Counsel: Ms. Nampeera JulietUganda
Respondent Counsel: Ms. Ainebyona Happiness03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the Chief Magistrate had the authority to cancel bail granted by the High Court upon committal of the applicant for trial.
- 02
Whether bail granted by a court of competent jurisdiction automatically lapses upon committal to the High Court.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant argued that the bail granted by the High Court was still valid and could not be lawfully cancelled by the Chief Magistrate upon committal. The applicant sought reinstatement of the bail on the original terms.
- Respondent
- The respondent contended that the bail granted by the High Court had lapsed upon the applicant's committal to the High Court for trial, justifying the remand order by the Chief Magistrate.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Uganda v Lawrence Luzinda [1986] H.C.B 33
Bail once granted can only be lawfully cancelled by the court that granted it upon satisfaction that there has been a breach of the conditions or the law.
- 02
Hon. Sam Kutesa and 2 others v Attorney General Constitutional Petition No.46 of 2011
Bail granted by a court of competent jurisdiction does not automatically lapse upon committal to the High Court for trial, and cannot be cancelled by a lower court.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court held that bail granted by the High Court does not automatically lapse upon committal of the accused for trial in the High Court. The Chief Magistrate had no authority to cancel or override the bail granted by the High Court. The only lawful way to cancel such bail is through the court that granted it, and only upon proof of breach of bail conditions or the law. The applicant's bail was therefore unlawfully cancelled, and the High Court ordered its reinstatement on the original terms.
Obiter and limits
- For avoidance of doubt, the terms of the previous bail shall be maintained. The applicant does not need to renew any of the terms.
Court disposition
application allowed
- Bail granted to the applicant by the High Court on 14th March 2022 is reinstated on the original terms.
- The applicant shall report to the Deputy Registrar of the Criminal Division in fulfillment of the bail terms imposed by the High Court.
- The applicant does not need to renew any of the bail terms.
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
| THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA | |------------------------------------------------------------| | IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA | | (CRIMINAL DIVISION) | | REVISION CAUSE NO.029 OF 2021 | | ARISING FROM WAKISO CR. AA NO.044 OF 2021 | | ALSO ARISING FROM CRIMINAL CASE NO. WAK-CO-1812-2020 | | ALL ARISING FROM WAKISO CRB 616 OF 2020 | | MUGERWA HAMIS------------------------------------APPLICANT | | VERSUS | | UGANDA---------------------------------------RESPONDENT |
BEFORE HON: JUSTICE ISAAC MUWATA
RULING
The applicant brought this application for revision seeking to set aside the decision of Her Worship Nakadama Esther in remanding him to Kigo Prison after being committed.
The background of this application is that the applicant was granted bail by Hon. Justice Michael Elubu on 14th March ,2022 vide Criminal Misc. Application No.186 of 2021.
When the applicant reported to the Chief Magistrate Court of Wakiso at Wakiso on the 16th day of June 2022 for mention of the matter as per the orders of the High Court, he was committed to the High Court and remanded on the orders that the bail granted by the High Court had lapsed
He has now filed this application for revision
Representation
The applicant was represented by Ms. Nampeera Juliet while Ms. Ainebyona Happiness was for the respondent
Consideration
It is trite law that bail once granted can only be lawfully cancelled upon satisfaction of the court that granted it that there has been a breach of the conditions set by it or of the law. See: Uganda V Lawrence Luzinda [1986] H. C. B 33)
The constitutional court in Hon. Sam Kutesa and 2 others Vs Attorney General Constitutional Petition No.46 of 2011 has stated that;
"Where, therefore, a court of law, in the exercise of its judicious discretion as part of judicial power, decides to grant bail to a person arrested in respect of a criminal offence, it would be contrary to Article 126(1) of the constitution , for another court, by the authority of section 168(4) of the Magistrates Court Act, to override the decision granting bail by automatically lapsing the same on the sole ground that the person, the subject of the bail, is being committed to the High Court for trial.
Bail granted by a court of competent jurisdiction to a person arrested in respect of a criminal offence does not automatically lapse by reason only of the fact that the person has already been committed to the High Court for trial. Similarly, bail granted by the High Court cannot be cancelled by the Chief Magistrate who committed the applicant.
Accordingly, I order that the bail be reinstated on the terms as ordered by the Hon. Judge on the 14th of March 2022. The applicant having been committed for trial will now report to the Deputy Registrar of the Criminal Division in fulfillment of the terms imposed by the Hon. Judge
For avoidance of doubt, the terms of the previous bail shall be maintained. The applicant does not need to renew any of the terms.
I so order.
JUDGE
27/03/2023
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.