Download

Uganda Judgment

High Court of Uganda

Mujuni Benard v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 102 of 2019) [2020] UGHC 18 (24 January 2020)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

While the applicant is constitutionally entitled to apply for bail and has presented substantial sureties and a fixed place of abode, the gravity of the offence of murder and the attendant risk of absconding outweigh the presumption of innocence and the right to bail. The court is not satisfied that the applicant will not abscond, especially given the unexplained circumstances surrounding the death and the fact that the applicant was the last person seen with the deceased. Therefore, the application for bail is declined and dismissed.

Court disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • Bail is denied to the applicant.
  • The application for bail is dismissed.

02

Material facts

Parties

Mujuni Benard

Applicant Counsel: Bruno Muhanguzi

Uganda

Respondent Counsel: Amy Grace

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Bail Application

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicant argued that he is presumed innocent until proven guilty, that bail is a constitutional right, and that the offence is bailable by the High Court. He asserted he has a fixed place of abode within the court's jurisdiction and presented substantial sureties (his brother and grandfather) who are responsible and able to guarantee his return for trial. He further submitted that he has been on remand for three years and that it is fair and just to grant bail.
Respondent
The respondent objected to the application on the grounds that the applicant is indicted for a grave offence (murder) which carries a maximum sentence of death, increasing the risk of absconding. The respondent argued that the seriousness of the offence should preclude the grant of bail and prayed for dismissal of the application.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Article 23(6)(a) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995

    The right to apply for bail is a constitutional right available to all accused persons, regardless of the nature of the offence.

  2. 02

    Article 28(3) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995

    Presumption of innocence until proven guilty is a fundamental constitutional principle.

  3. 03

    His Majesty Omusinga Mumbere Wesley v Uganda [Crim. Misc Application No. 75/2016]; Okello Augustine v Uganda [Cr. Misc. Application No. 06/2012]

    In grave offences such as murder, the risk of absconding is heightened due to the severity of the potential sentence.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

While the applicant is constitutionally entitled to apply for bail and has presented substantial sureties and a fixed place of abode, the gravity of the offence of murder and the attendant risk of absconding outweigh the presumption of innocence and the right to bail. The court is not satisfied that the applicant will not abscond, especially given the unexplained circumstances surrounding the death and the fact that the applicant was the last person seen with the deceased. Therefore, the application for bail is declined and dismissed.

Obiter and limits

  • The state did not vehemently object to the grant of this application, but the seriousness of the offence remains paramount.
  • The applicant has been on remand for three years, which is a considerable period, but does not override the risk factors associated with the offence.

Court disposition

application dismissed

  • Bail is denied to the applicant.
  • The application for bail is dismissed.

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.

Source document

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

High Court of Uganda

Judgment

[2020] UGHC 18

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA SITTING AT MBARARA

MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 102 OF 2019

(Arising from H. C Cr. Case. No. 026 of 2016)

MUJUNI BENARD::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::APPLICANT

VERSUS

UGANDA:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::RESPONDENT

BEFORE: HON JUSTICE SSEKAANA MUSA

RULING

This is an application for bail pending trial of the applicant who is remanded at Kakiika Prison charged with the offence of murder contrary to sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act Cap 120. It is alleged that the applicant and a one Ndyabahika Innocent on the night of 7th – 8 th April 2016 at Kibingo core PTC in Mbarara district murdered Bebwa Nathan.

The grounds of this application are that;

- 1. That the applicant is suspected to have committed the offence of murder C/S 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act and is therefore presumed to be innocent. - 2. That it is a constitutional right of the applicant to apply for bail before this honourable court. - 3. That the offence with which the applicant is charged is bailable by this honourable court. - 4. That the applicant was on the 24th day of October 2016 committed to high court. - 5. That the applicant will not abscond from attending court once he is released on bail in since he has a fixed place of abode in Ntsingwa II

Cell, Kibingo Parish, Bugamba Sub-county Rwampara County, Mbarara District within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court.

- 6. That the applicant has substantial sureties ready to guarantee his return for trial once released on bail. - 7. That it is fair, reasonable and in the interest of justice that this application be granted.

The respondent objected to the application on grounds that the applicant is indicted of an offence which is grave in nature and prayed that the same be dismissed.

At the hearing the applicant was represented by Bruno Muhanguzi whereas the respondent was represented by Amy Grace.

The applicant presented two sureties at the hearing;

- 1. Muzoori Jafari aged 51 years, farmer, resident of Rwamuganga, Kibingo parish, a paternal grandfather to the applicant. - 2. Byanyima Johnbosco aged 38 years, a famer, resident of Ntsigwa cell Kibingo Rwampara a biological brother of the applicant.

It has been set out in many cases that, the right to apply for bail is a constitutional right and is open to all categories accused person irrespective of the nature of the offence for which they are charged. Consider for example the case of His Majesty Omusinga Mumbere Wesley Vrs. Uganda [Crim. Misc Application No. 75/2016] and Okello Augustine Vrs. Uganda [Cr. Misc. Application No. 06/2012].

This applicant is therefore entitled to apply for bail. However, as state pointed out, for a grave offence like murder, the Court should consider the fear of conviction which attracts a maximum sentence of death. Release on bail of such a serious offence would make it attractive for one consider absconding.

The constitutional principle of presumption of innocence and the right to apply for bail are of paramount interest to this Court. This applicant has been on remand for 3 years. The applicant has a permanent fixed place of abode and has presented this court with substantive sureties one of whom is his brother and the other is his grandfather who are both within his locality. The state did not vehemently object to the grant of this application.

The sureties appear to be 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.

In the exercise of discretion, this court is satisfied that the applicant will attend court once granted bail. Due the gravity of the offence and there is high possibility of the applicant jumping bail.

There is unexplained circumstances surrounding the death of his colleague at work with whom he was the last person to be seen with.

I decline to grant bail to the applicant. The application is dismissed

I so order.

SSEKAANA MUSA JUDGE 24th January 2020

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.

His Majesty Omusinga Mumbere Wesley v Uganda [Crim. Misc Application No. 75/2016]

Case cited

Okello Augustine v Uganda [Cr. Misc. Application No. 06/2012]

Case cited

Penal Code Act Cap 120, sections 188 and 189

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995, Article 23(6)(a)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995, Article 28(3)

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.