Share
Ogwang v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 30 of 1993) [1994] UGHC 94 (4 February 1994)
- Citation
- [1994] UGHC 94
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Panel
- Lugayizi, J
- Case number
- Criminal Miscellaneous Application 30 of 1993
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Panel
- Lugayizi, J
- Case number
- Criminal Miscellaneous Application 30 of 1993
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The applicant's rights under section 14B of the Trial on Indictments Decree only begin to take effect from the date of remand by the Chief Magistrate, not from the period spent in police custody. As the applicant had not yet been on remand for a continuous period exceeding 480 days, his application for bail on this ground was premature. Regarding sickness, the applicant failed to provide any evidence of grave illness, and in the absence of certification by a Medical Board or sufficient evidence, the claim of exceptional circumstances could not be sustained. Therefore, the application for bail was dismissed on both grounds.
Court disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for bail is dismissed.
02
Material facts
Parties
Og. Hang Alfred
ApplicantUganda
Respondent Counsel: Mr. Elubu03
Procedural history
Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Bail Application
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicant qualifies for bail under section 14B of the Trial on Indictments Decree due to the length of remand period.
- 02
Whether the applicant's alleged sickness constitutes exceptional circumstances for bail under section 14A(2)(a) of the Trial on Indictments Decree.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant argued that he had been kept in police custody for nine months before being taken to court and subsequently remanded, and therefore qualified for bail under section 14B of the Trial on Indictments Decree. He also claimed to be sick and weak, suggesting exceptional circumstances for bail.
- Respondent
- The Director of Public Prosecutions was unrepresented at the time of the application, and no arguments were presented on behalf of the respondent.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Trial on Indictments Decree, section 14B (as amended by Act 5/90)
Section 14B of the Trial on Indictments Decree provides that an accused person remanded for a continuous period exceeding 480 days in respect of an offence punishable by death shall be released on bail unless certain exceptions apply.
- 02
Trial on Indictments Decree, section 14A(2)(a) (as amended by Act 5/85)
Section 14A(2)(a) of the Trial on Indictments Decree requires that grave illness must be certified by a Medical Board as incapable of adequate medical treatment in custody to constitute exceptional circumstances for bail.
- 03
Ahmad Sengendo vs. Uganda Misc. Cr. Appl. No. 111 of 1986; Lule Tony vs. Uganda Misc. Cr. Appl. No. 25 of 1993
In the absence of a Medical Board, the court may consider available evidence to determine whether the alleged illness is grave and incapable of adequate treatment in custody.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The applicant's rights under section 14B of the Trial on Indictments Decree only begin to take effect from the date of remand by the Chief Magistrate, not from the period spent in police custody. As the applicant had not yet been on remand for a continuous period exceeding 480 days, his application for bail on this ground was premature. Regarding sickness, the applicant failed to provide any evidence of grave illness, and in the absence of certification by a Medical Board or sufficient evidence, the claim of exceptional circumstances could not be sustained. Therefore, the application for bail was dismissed on both grounds.
Obiter and limits
- If the applicant's claim of being kept in police custody for nine months before being produced in court is true, those responsible at Abim Police Station acted unlawfully and highhandedly.
- Police must remember that suspects are to be produced before a court of law within twenty-four hours of being taken into custody.
Court disposition
application dismissed
- 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.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
High Court of Uganda
Judgment
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA MISC. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 30/1993 (Original Criminal Case No. MNG 92/92)
OG. HANG ALFRED: ....... $\cdots$ APPLICANT VERSUS
UG!NDA: ... RESPONDENT BEFORE: The Honourable Mr. Ag. Justice E. S. Lugavizi RULING:
The Applicant herein was charged with the offence of defilement contrary to section 123 of the Penal Code before the Chief Magistrate's Court in Moroto. This took place on 2nd November, 1992, after which he was remanded and has been in custody since then.
When the Applicant came before me on an application for bail on 31st January, 1994, he disclosed that before ho was taken to court on 2nd November, 1992, he had been kept in Abim police custody for a period of nine months. In view of the above therefore, he believed that he presently qualified for the grant of bail under section 14B of the Trial on Indictments Decree. In addition, the Applicant said that he was sick and weak.
The Director of Public Presecutions was unrepresented at the time of this application, and so I was unable to have his views.
Be that as it may, section 14B of the Trial on Indictments Decree (incorporated therein by Act 5/90) which lays down the time limit in capital cases where persons who have not yet been tried are on remand, provides as follows: $...12...$
"14B If an accused person has been remanded in custody before the commencement of his trial <sup>~</sup>
> (a) in respect of any offence punishable by death, for a continuous period exceeding four hundred and eighty days, or
(b) .....................
the judge beforewhom he first appears after the expiration of the relevant period shall release him on bail oq. his rooegnicamjo that he is accused of an' offence referred to in section 14A(1), unless,
- (i) he has, prior to the expiration of that period, been committed to the High Court for trial; or - <iO the judge satisfied that it is for the protection of the public that he should not be released from custody".
Although Vto- ipjiiicant Inor-alri ola.ii-.is: to iiw. V-u boon hvlxl in " police custody for nine months before he appeared in court in Moroto, I believe his rights under the above law did not begin to take effect until the Chief Magistrate actually remanded him on 2nd November, 1992. As a result therefore, this part of his w\* application which is based on the above law is premature, for he has not yet been on remand for a continous period exceeding 4SO days. By my calculation, he has covered only around 43 <sup>o</sup> days.
As regards sickness, according to section 14A(2)(a) of the Trial on Indictments Decree (incorporated therein by Act <sup>5</sup> of 19B5) an Applicant cannot succeed under this item of
exceptional circumstances unless he shows that he is suffering from grave illness which had been certified by a Medical Board of being incapable of adequate medical treatment while the Applicant is in custody.
$3:$
$\ddot{\phantom{a}}$
However, it is common knowledge that up to now, there is no such Medical Board in place. In the face of that difficulty therefore, cases, such as Ahmad Sengendo vs. Uganda Misc. Cr. Appl. No. 111 of 1986, Lule Tony vs. Uganda Misc. Cr. Appl. No. 25 of 1993, and others, have suggested that it would be appropriate for the court to substitute itself for the Medical Board and consider the available evidence and decide whether the alleged grave illness is really grave and whether it is such as would be incapable of adequate medical treatment while the accused is in custody.
In this case, however, apart from the fact that the Applicant alleged that he was sick and weak, there was absolutely no evidence concerning the state of his health.
In the event therefore, this application for bail would again fail under this itom. Accordingly, the application herein stands dismissed.
Before I take leave of this matter, may I take this opportunity to point out that if the Applicant's claim that he was kept in police custody for 9 months before being produced in a court of law is true, then whoever was responsible for that at Abim Police Station, acted unlawfully and highhandedly. The police would always do well to remember that whenever a suspect is in their hands, he is supposed to be produced before a court of law within the next twenty-four hours. Middle games
E. S. Lugayizi<br>Ag. J U D G E $4/02/1994.$
$.../4...$
Read before:
Mr. Elubu for the State.
The Applicant/Accused present.
• 4
Mrs. Kamkama Court/Clerk.
E. S. Lugayizi
Ag. J <sup>U</sup> <sup>D</sup> GE 4/02/1994.
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.