Share
Ruhangana alias Kahima v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 881 of 2019) [2020] UGHC 22 (24 January 2020)
- Citation
- [2020] UGHC 22
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Panel
- Musa Ssekaana, J
- Case number
- Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 881 of 2019
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Panel
- Musa Ssekaana, J
- Case number
- Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 881 of 2019
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The applicant, indicted for murder and aged 17 at the time of the alleged offence, has a constitutional right to apply for bail. The court found that the applicant presented substantial sureties, has a fixed place of abode, and there was no evidence suggesting a likelihood of absconding or interference with witnesses. The principles of presumption of innocence and the need to prepare a defence were weighed against the gravity of the offence and societal interests. The court exercised its discretion under Article 23(6)(a) of the Constitution and Sections 14 and 15 of the Trial on Indictments Act, determining that the applicant met the legal requirements for bail. Bail was granted subject to strict terms to ensure attendance at trial.
Court disposition
bail_granted
Orders
- The applicant shall pay UGX 2,000,000 in cash to Court.
- Each of the three sureties shall execute a non-cash bond of UGX 10,000,000.
- The applicant is to report to the Registrar of the Court every 15th day of the month for the duration of his trial, commencing 15/02/2020.
02
Material facts
Parties
Ruhangana Samuel Alias Kahima
Applicant Counsel: __MISSING__Uganda
Respondent Counsel: __MISSING__Amounts and remedies
- Applicant Cash Bail: UGX 2,000,000
- Surety Non Cash Bond Per Person: UGX 10,000,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Bail Application Ruling
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail pending trial for the offence of murder.
- 02
Whether the applicant has satisfied the legal requirements for grant of bail under the Constitution and the Trial on Indictments Act.
- 03
Whether the applicant is likely to abscond or interfere with prosecution witnesses if released on bail.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant was not involved in the fracas leading to the offence, was aged 17 years at the time, is willing to abide by any bail conditions, has presented substantial sureties, and has a fixed place of abode. The applicant is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
- Respondent
- Counsel for the state opposed the application, arguing that the offence is grave, the applicant has had access to the evidence and is likely to abscond. The interest of society and the manner in which the offence was committed should be considered. If bail is granted, strict terms should be imposed to ensure attendance at trial.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Article 23(6)(a) of the Constitution of Uganda
The right to apply for bail is a constitutional right available to all accused persons regardless of the nature of the offence.
- 02
Sections 14(1) and 15(3)(a) of the Trial on Indictments Act
The High Court may grant bail at any stage of proceedings, subject to reasonable conditions and the satisfaction of the court regarding exceptional circumstances and likelihood of absconding.
- 03
Article 28(3)(a) and (c) of the Constitution of Uganda
Presumption of innocence and the need to afford the accused adequate opportunity to prepare a defence are overriding principles in bail applications.
- 04
Dr. Ismail Kalule & 3 Others v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Applications 57, 58, 59, & 60 of 2010) [2011]; His Majesty Omusinga Mumbere Wesley vs Uganda [Crim. Misc Application No. 75/2016]
Court must consider the gravity of the offence, severity of sentence, antecedents, fixed place of abode, likelihood of interference with witnesses, and substantial sureties when exercising discretion on bail.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The applicant, indicted for murder and aged 17 at the time of the alleged offence, has a constitutional right to apply for bail. The court found that the applicant presented substantial sureties, has a fixed place of abode, and there was no evidence suggesting a likelihood of absconding or interference with witnesses. The principles of presumption of innocence and the need to prepare a defence were weighed against the gravity of the offence and societal interests. The court exercised its discretion under Article 23(6)(a) of the Constitution and Sections 14 and 15 of the Trial on Indictments Act, determining that the applicant met the legal requirements for bail. Bail was granted subject to strict terms to ensure attendance at trial.
Obiter and limits
- The right to apply for bail is not limited by the nature of the offence charged.
- The relationship of the sureties to the applicant is a relevant factor in assessing the likelihood of attendance at trial.
- Strict bail terms may be imposed to balance the interests of justice and ensure the accused's attendance.
Court disposition
bail_granted
- The applicant shall pay UGX 2,000,000 in cash to Court.
- Each of the three sureties shall execute a non-cash bond of UGX 10,000,000.
- The applicant is to report to the Registrar of the Court every 15th day of the month for the duration of his trial, commencing 15/02/2020.
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 MBARARA
HCT-05-CR-CMA- 881- 2019
RUHANGANA SAMUEL--------------------------------------------------- APPLICANT Alias KAHIMA
VERSUS
UGANDA …………………………………….………….. RESPONDENT
BEFORE HON. MR. JUSTICE SSEKAANA MUSA
RULING
This is an application for bail pending the trial of the applicant who is indicted with the offence of Murder contrary to Section 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act. Counsel for the applicant has applied for bail contending that the applicant was not involved in the fracas between Turyamusiima Allan and the deceased. At the time of commission of the said offence, the applicant was aged 17 years.
It was counsel's argument that the applicant is willing to abide by any bail conditions that may be imposed upon him.
That he has satisfied Court that he will not abscond by presenting substantial sureties and stating his address of abode.
He has also stated that the applicant is presumed innocent until proved guilty.
Counsel for the state opposed the application stating that the offence is grave, the applicant has had a chance to look at the evidence. He is likely to jump bail. He continued that for the interest of society and the manner in which the offence was committed should be considered and if the court is inclined to grant him bail then it should issue very strict terms to enable him attend trial.
DETERMINATION
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. And that the applicant under Article 23(6) (a) of the Constitution states that;
*(6) where a person is arrested in respect of a criminal offence-*
*(a) the person is entitled to apply to the court to be released on bail, and the court may grant that person bail on such conditions as the court considers reasonable;…..*
The other applicable laws regarding grant of bail are sections 14(1) and 15(3) (a) of the Trial on Indictments Act. Section 14 provides as follows:-
*(14) Release on bail.*
*(1) The High Court may at any stage in the proceedings release the accused person on bail, that is to say, on taking from him or her a recognisance consisting of a bond, with or without sureties, for such an amount as is reasonable in the circumstances of the case, to appear before court on such a date and at such a time as is named in the bond.*
*(15) Refusal to grant bail.*
*(1) Notwithstanding section 14, the court may refuse to grant bail to a person accused of an offence specified in sub section (2) if he or she does not prove to the satisfaction of the court –*
- *(a) that exceptional circumstances exist justifying his or her release on bail; and (b) that he or she will not abscond when released on bail.* - *(2) An offence referred to in subsection (1) is: –* - *(a) an offence triable only by the High Court;* - *(b) an offence under the Penal Code Act relating to acts of terrorism …*
*… … …*
- *(4) In considering whether or not the accused is likely to abscond, the court may take into account the following factors: –* - *(a) whether the accused has a fixed place of abode within the jurisdiction of the court or is ordinarily resident outside Uganda;* - *(b) whether the accused has sound securities within the jurisdiction to undertake that the accused shall comply with the conditions of his or her bail;* - *(c) … … …*
*(d) whether there are other charges pending against the accused.*
Both Article 23 (6) (a), of the Constitution, and sections 14(1) and 15(3) (a) of the Trial on Indictments Act mandate Court to exercise discretion and grant bail; and to impose such terms and conditions as it considers reasonable for the grant of bail. The overriding principles for admitting a remand prisoner to bail are first, the presumption of innocence; which is that an accused person is presumed innocent, except where he or she has pleaded guilty to the charge, or the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that such person perpetrated or participated in the offence charged. Second, there is need to afford an accused person adequate opportunity to prepare for his or her defence which obviously cannot be properly done when on remand. These principles are respectively enshrined in Article 28 (3) (a), and (c) of the Constitution.
In the converse, is the need for Court to determine whether in the circumstance of the case, the Applicant will turn up for trial or abscond when granted bail. There are well established guidelines Court should adhere to, in the exercise of its discretion, in considering the issue of bail. These include the nature or gravity of the offence the accused is charged with, the severity of the sentence that could result therefrom if conviction is secured, the antecedents of the Applicant in so far as they are known, whether or not the Applicant has a fixed place of abode within the jurisdiction of the Court, the likelihood of the Applicant interfering with the prosecution witnesses, and whether the Applicant has presented substantial sureties. *See, Dr. Ismail Kalule & 3 Others V Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Applications 57, 58, 59, & 60 of 2010) [2011], His Majesty Omusinga Mumbere Wesley vs Uganda [Crim. Misc Application No. 75/2016]*
In my estimation, the applicant fulfills most of those conditions. What is important is this applicant has in his affidavit shown that he has a fixed place of abode which is Bwitera Kijubwe Kayonza in Ntungamo District. He has also presented substantial sureties, Nyesiga Naboth aged 39 years, applicant's cousin brother and a farmer, Agaba Laban aged 32 years, applicant's brother and a farmer and Nsimenta Dinah aged 38 years, applicant's mother all residents of Kijubwe Kayonza in Ntungamo District. Their relationship to him has convinced court that they would be in a position to compel him to attend the trial.
Therefore, I am allowing this application. I am granting bail to the applicant on the following terms;
- 1. He will pay shs. 2,000,000/= in cash to Court. - 2. The 3 sureties shall execute a non cash bond of shs. 10,000,000/= each. - 3. The applicant is to report to the Registrar of this Court every 15th day of the month for the entire duration of his trial with effect from 15/02/2020.
I so order
SSEKAANA MUSA JUDGE 24th January 2020
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.