Share
Mugisha v Uganda (HCT – 01 – CR – CM – NO – 050 OF 2018) [2019] UGHCCRD 19 (24 January 2019)
- Citation
- [2019] UGHCCRD 19
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Masalu Musene, J
- Case number
- HCT – 01 – CR – CM – NO – 050 OF 2018
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Masalu Musene, J
- Case number
- HCT – 01 – CR – CM – NO – 050 OF 2018
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the applicant is charged with a bailable offence and presented responsible sureties who will ensure his return to court. The applicant has a fixed place of abode and family responsibilities, and there was no objection from the state. In view of the presumption of innocence and satisfaction of statutory requirements, the court held that this is a fit and proper case to grant bail to the applicant, subject to specified conditions.
Court disposition
bail_granted
Orders
- Applicant to deposit a sum of Shs. 500,000/= cash in Court.
- Each surety to execute a bond of Shs. 1,000,000/= not cash.
- Applicant to report to the Assistant Registrar of this Court once a month until trial, starting on 22/2/2019.
02
Material facts
Parties
Mugisha Ronald
Applicant Counsel: Nakagga & Co. AdvocatesUganda (DPP)
Respondent Counsel: Wasswa AdamAmounts and remedies
- Applicant Cash Deposit: UGX 500,000
- Surety Bond (each): UGX 1,000,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Bail Application Ruling
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail for the offence of rape.
- 02
Whether the applicant has presented substantial sureties and satisfied bail conditions.
- 03
Whether granting bail is in the interest of justice.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant argued that the offence of rape is bailable by the High Court, he has substantial sureties, a fixed place of abode within the jurisdiction, family responsibilities, and will abide by all bail terms. He contended that it is in the interest of justice to grant bail.
- Respondent
- The respondent, represented by the state, did not object to the bail application.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Article 23 and 28 of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995
Bail is a constitutional right subject to the discretion of the court and satisfaction of statutory requirements.
- 02
Article 28(3) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995
Presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
- 03
Sections 14 and 15 of the Trial on Indictments Act
Court may grant bail if the accused presents substantial sureties and meets conditions set by law.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the applicant is charged with a bailable offence and presented responsible sureties who will ensure his return to court. The applicant has a fixed place of abode and family responsibilities, and there was no objection from the state. In view of the presumption of innocence and satisfaction of statutory requirements, the court held that this is a fit and proper case to grant bail to the applicant, subject to specified conditions.
Obiter and limits
- The presence of responsible sureties is crucial in ensuring the accused returns to court for trial.
- The presumption of innocence is a fundamental right that must be upheld in bail applications.
Court disposition
bail_granted
- Applicant to deposit a sum of Shs. 500,000/= cash in Court.
- Each surety to execute a bond of Shs. 1,000,000/= not cash.
- Applicant to report to the Assistant Registrar of this Court once a month until trial, starting on 22/2/2019.
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 COUT OF UGANDA AT FORT PORTAL
HCT – 01 – CR – CM – NO – 050 OF 2018
(Arising from FPT – 00 – CR – AA – No. 212 of 2018)
MUGISHA RONALD .............................................................................. APPLICANT
VERSUS
UGANDA (DPP).................................................................................. RESPONDENT
BEFORE: HIS LORDSHIP MR. WILSON MASALU MUSENE
Ruling
The Applicant, Mugisha Ronald applied for bail under Article 23 and 28 of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995, Sections 14 and 15 of the Trial on Indictments Act, Rule 2 of the Judicature (Criminal Procedure) (Application) Rules
The Applicant was represented by M/s Nakagga & Co. Advocates and Wasswa Adam appeared for the Respondent. The general grounds in support are stated in the Notice of Motion but briefly are:-
1. The offence (rape) with which the Applicant us charged with is bailable by this Honourable Court.
2. The Applicant has substantial sureties ready to stand for him and abide by the bail terms set.
3. The Applicant has a fixed place of abode within the jurisdiction of this honourable Court.
4. The Applicant shall abide by all bail terms set by the honourable Court.
5. The Applicant has family responsibilities and obligations required of him.
6. It is in the interest of justice that this application is allowed.
The two sureties are Mutegeki Adolf and Kabasemera Hilda. The state had no object ion to the bail application.
Since the sureties appear responsible persons who will ensure the accused returns to Court to stand trial, and in view of the presumption of innocence as provided under Article 28(3) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995, I find and hold that this is a fit and proper case to grant bail to the Applicant.
I therefore, do hereby grant bail to the accused on the following conditions;
1. Applicant to deposit a sum of Shs. 500,000/= cash in Court.
2. Each of the sureties to execute a bond of Shs. 1,000,000/= not cash.
3. Applicant to be reporting to the Assistant Registrar of this Court once in a month till trial, starting on 22/2/2019.
........................................
WILSON MASALU MUSENE
JUDGE
24/1/2019
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.