Share
Uganda v Peko (Criminal Session Case 439 of 1995) [1996] UGHC 49 (19 August 1996)
- Citation
- [1996] UGHC 49
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Panel
- GM OKELLO, J
- Case number
- Criminal Session Case 439 of 1995
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Panel
- GM OKELLO, J
- Case number
- Criminal Session Case 439 of 1995
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the adjournment was necessitated by the prosecution's failure to summon witnesses, which was deemed a neglect of duty by the Police. The accused demonstrated a permanent residence within the court's jurisdiction and provided two substantial sureties. The court emphasized that the main consideration for bail is ensuring the accused's appearance at trial, not punitive detention. Given the circumstances and the accused's willingness to comply with bail conditions, the court held that continued detention was unjustified and granted bail with specific conditions to secure attendance at trial.
Court disposition
bail_granted_and_case_adjourned
Orders
- Accused to bind himself in the sum of UGX 500,000 not cash.
- Accused to produce two substantial sureties to be approved by the Chief Magistrate Gulu, each to bind themselves in the sum of UGX 1,000,000 not cash.
- On release, accused to report to Gulu Police Station and to the Chief Magistrate Court Gulu once a month starting from 19th August, 1996 until further order of the court.
- Case adjourned to the next convenient session of the court.
02
Material facts
Parties
Uganda
Applicant Counsel: Mr. KabaliPeko Charles
Defendant Counsel: Mr. OlaaAmounts and remedies
- Accused Bail Bond: UGX 500,000
- Surety Bond (each): UGX 1,000,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Session / Bail Application Ruling
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the accused should be granted bail pending trial due to the adjournment caused by absence of prosecution witnesses.
- 02
What conditions are appropriate for granting bail in the circumstances.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Counsel for the State requested adjournment as all intended witnesses were not summoned, with no explanation from the Police. He opposed bail, arguing that accused persons often abscond when released, and feared the accused would not return for trial.
- Respondent
- Counsel for the accused did not oppose adjournment but applied for bail under section 51(4) of the T.I.D., arguing the accused has a permanent abode within the court's jurisdiction and two sureties willing to ensure his attendance at trial.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Jaffer v Republic (1973) EA 53
The primary object of remanding an accused in custody is to ensure appearance at trial, not to punish or prevent evasion of justice.
- 02
Section 51(4), Trial on Indictments Decree
Section 51(4) of the Trial on Indictments Decree empowers the High Court to admit an accused to bail on remand, subject to appropriate conditions.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the adjournment was necessitated by the prosecution's failure to summon witnesses, which was deemed a neglect of duty by the Police. The accused demonstrated a permanent residence within the court's jurisdiction and provided two substantial sureties. The court emphasized that the main consideration for bail is ensuring the accused's appearance at trial, not punitive detention. Given the circumstances and the accused's willingness to comply with bail conditions, the court held that continued detention was unjustified and granted bail with specific conditions to secure attendance at trial.
Obiter and limits
- The failure by Police to summon witnesses, especially those residing nearby, constitutes a blatant neglect of duty.
- With the attitude shown by the Police, there is no guarantee that witnesses will be summoned for the next session.
Court disposition
bail_granted_and_case_adjourned
- Accused to bind himself in the sum of UGX 500,000 not cash.
- Accused to produce two substantial sureties to be approved by the Chief Magistrate Gulu, each to bind themselves in the sum of UGX 1,000,000 not cash.
- On release, accused to report to Gulu Police Station and to the Chief Magistrate Court Gulu once a month starting from 19th August, 1996 until further order of the court.
- Case adjourned to the next convenient session of the court.
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 HON. MR. JUSTICE EGONSA NTENDE
$\sim$
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT SESSION HOLDEN AT GULU CRIMINAL SESSION CASE NO. 439/95 UGANDA . . . . . . . . . . . PROSECUTION -VERSUS-PEKO CHARLES ACCUSED ......................
BEFORE: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G. M. OKELLO
RULING
When this case was called for hearing, counsel for the state applied for it to be adjourned to the next convenient session of this court. His reason for that application was that all his intended witnesses in the case were not summoned. No reasons were given to him by the Police for that failure.
Mr. Olaa Counsel for the accused did not oppose the application al though he expressed concern at the difficulty faced by the Resident State Attorney in securing attendance of witnesses. He however, applied for his client to be released on bail. He made the application under section $51(4)$ of the T. I. D. He appointed out that the accused has a permanent abode at Layibi within the jurisdiction of that this court and/there were two sureties willing to undertake to ensure that the accused appears to attend his trial.
Mr. Kabali Counsel for the State opposed the application mainly on the ground that history had shown that once released on bail accused persons do not return to attend their trial. He therefore feared that if released on bail, this accused person would not also return to take his trial.
Section 51(4) under which the application was made reads thus: $"51(1)$ If from the absence of witness or any other reasonable cause to be recorded in the proceedings, the High Court consider: it necessary or advisable to postpone the commencement of or to adjourn any trial, the court may from time to time post pone or adjourn the same on such terms as it thinks fit for such time as it considers reasonable and may by warrantl remand the accused to some prison or other place of security.
- (2) ... - (3) ...
"(4) The court may on a remand admit the excused to bail subject to such conditions as may seem appropiate".
The above section clearly empowers the High Court for any reasonable cause to be recorded in the proceedings to post poned the commencement of or adjourn the trial from time to time on conditions it considers appropriate•
On the appropriateness of the conditions on which to admit an accused on bail, it is important to refer to Jaffer <sup>y</sup> Republic (.1.973)EA <sup>53</sup> where it /as observed that,
''the primary object of remanding an accused in custody is to ensure that he will appear to take his 'trial and not to seek to evade justice by leaving 'the jurisdiction of the court"
The Trial Judge in that case held that that was in his view the main and most important consideration to be examined before an application for bail pending trial was granted or refused. I fully agree with that view.
In the instant case, the reason for post ponment of the commencement of the 'trial was due to absence of witnesses. They had not been summoned yet I am told that some of these witnesses live within the Police Barracks Gulu and others live at Te Gwanda which is only <sup>1</sup> (one) kilometer from the Police Barracks Gulu. So failure to summon these witnesses by the Police was in my view a bla' .tant act of neglect of duty. Even in the face of that counsel for the state
urged court not to release the accused on bail. With the kind of attitude shown by the Police how can one be sure that in the next convenient session of this court these witnesses will be summoned? Why then should the accused be made to suffer in custody as a result if he can demonstrate that he will appear and attend his trial.
$\mathcal{F}_{\text{int}}$
The accused in this case has told court that he has resides at Layibi and has a permanent abode at Anaka within the jurisdiction of this court. He moved to Layibi as a result of the insecurity. He has two surities who are willing to undertake to ensure that he will appear to take his trial. In the above conditions I am more inclined to release the accused on bail on the following conditions:
- $\overline{1}$ Accused to bind himself in the sum of shs $500,000.$ = not cash. - $2)$ To produce two substantial surities to be approved by the Chief Magistrate Gulu. The surities to bind themselves in the sum of shs 1 million each not cash. - 3) On release, the accused is to report to Gulu Police Station and to the Chief Magistrate Court Gulu once a month starting from 19th August, 1996 until further order of this court.
On the above ground the accused is released on bail as the case is adjourned to the next convenient session of this court.
G. M. OKELLO
Judge
$19/8/96$
3
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.