Download

Uganda Judgment

HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)

Nyanzi v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 194 of 2024) [2024] UGHCCRD 52 (6 June 2024)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The applicant does not qualify for mandatory bail under Article 23(6)(c) of the Constitution because he has already been committed to the High Court for trial. The constitutional and statutory provisions on mandatory bail apply only to accused persons who have not yet been committed. Since the applicant's committal is confirmed by the court record and database, the application for mandatory bail fails and is dismissed.

Court disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for mandatory bail is dismissed.

02

Material facts

Parties

Nyanzi Isma

Applicant

Uganda

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Mandatory Bail

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicant argued that he was charged with aggravated robbery, has been on remand since 2021 without committal, and is therefore entitled to mandatory bail under Article 23(6)(c) of the Constitution and relevant statutory provisions.
Respondent
The respondent established through the court case management system that the applicant was committed to the High Court for trial as of 10th November 2021, and therefore does not qualify for mandatory bail under the cited constitutional provision.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

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

    A person charged with an offence triable only by the High Court who has been remanded for 180 days before committal is entitled to mandatory bail.

  2. 02

    Clause 10(1) and 10(3) of The Constitution (Bail Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions 2022

    Mandatory release on bail for offences triable by the High Court shall be granted only by the High Court and only if the accused has not been committed for trial.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The applicant does not qualify for mandatory bail under Article 23(6)(c) of the Constitution because he has already been committed to the High Court for trial. The constitutional and statutory provisions on mandatory bail apply only to accused persons who have not yet been committed. Since the applicant's committal is confirmed by the court record and database, the application for mandatory bail fails and is dismissed.

Obiter and limits

  • The provisions on mandatory bail are couched in mandatory terms, but their application is strictly limited to the pre-committal stage.

Court disposition

application dismissed

  • The application for mandatory bail is dismissed.

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.

Source document

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)

Judgment

[2024] UGHCCRD 52

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

CRIMINAL MISC. APPL. No. 194 of 2024

NYANZI ISMA

APPLICANT $\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccccccccccc} \multicolumn{3}{c}{\textbf{000000000000000000000000000000000000$

Versus

UGANDA

RESPONDENT $\cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots$

BEFORE: HON. MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ELUBU RULING

This application is commenced under Articles 23 (6) (a) and 28 (3) (a) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda; Sections 14 (1) and 15 (1) (b) of the Trial on Indictments Act; and Clause 10 (1) of The Constitution (Bail Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions 2022

The applicant, Nyanzi Isma, seeks an order that he be released on mandatory bail.

The grounds on which the application is based are set out in the Notice of Motion and elaborated in affidavit sworn by the applicant.

He states that he was charged with the offence of Aggravated Robbery contrary to Sections 285 and 286 (2) of the Penal Code Act. That he was remanded 2021 and

$\mathbf{1}$

has remained in detention without committal. On this basis the applicant seeks a mandatory release on bail.

It has however been established from the court case management information system that the applicant was committed to the High Court and his High Court Session Case No. 544 of 2021. The matter was entered in the system on the 10<sup>th</sup> of November 2021.

Determination

This application is made on the premise that the applicant qualifies for mandatory bail. Because the applicant was charged with the offence of Aggravated Robbery contrary to Sections 285 and 286 (2) of the Penal Code Act, which is only triable by the High Court, then the relevant provision of the Constitution is Article 23 (6) (c) which states that,

Where a person is arrested in respect of a criminal offence in the case of an offence triable only by the High Court, if that person has been remanded in custody for one hundred and eighty days before the case is committed to the High Court, that person shall be released on bail on such conditions as the court considers reasonable.

Clause 10 (1) of The Constitution (Bail Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions 2022 reproduces the above article of the constitution.

This Court notes that the provisions are couched in mandatory terms.

The procedural provision is Clause 10 (3) of the above Guidelines which stipulates,

For the avoidance of doubt, mandatory release on bail for offences triable by the High Court under Article 23 (6) (c) of the Constitution shall be granted only by the High Court.

$\mathbf{2}$

I have perused the court record and checked with the court case database, and established that indeed, the applicant has been committed to the high court for his trial. The matter was entered in the court database as High Court Session Case No. 544 of 2021.

For release under Article 23 (6) (c) of the Constitution to be effected, the applicant should not have been committed to the High Court for trial. In view of the fact that he has now been committed, then he does not qualify for mandatory release on bail. For that reason, this application must fail and is dismissed.

Michael Elubu Judge 06.06.2024

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.

Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, Article 23(6)(a), 23(6)(c), 28(3)(a)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Trial on Indictments Act, Sections 14(1), 15(1)(b)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

The Constitution (Bail Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions 2022, Clause 10(1), 10(3)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Penal Code Act, Sections 285, 286(2)

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.