Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Uganda decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Ivan Wavamuno aka Isaac v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 49 of 2025) [2025] UGHC 504 (27 June 2025)
The High Court at Jinja granted bail to a man charged with aggravated robbery, finding a fixed abode, substantial sureties, and no reason to deny release.
Besigye and Another v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application 113 of 2025) [2025] UGHCCRD 16 (11 April 2025)
The High Court denied bail to Kizza Besigye and Obed Lutale, holding that the treason charges, ongoing investigations, and risk of interference outweighed their age and sureties.
Canodia v Uganda (HCT-00-CR-CM 273 of 2024) [2024] UGHCCRD 65 (6 November 2024)
The court found that the applicant failed to provide substantial sureties as required by the Bail Guidelines, with insufficient information regarding their residence and occupation. The applicant also failed to demonstrate a fixed place of abode, as his employment at a construction site was deemed temporary and fluid, lacking the permanence required by law. The court held that the applicant did not provide sufficient guarantees to ensure he would not abscond if granted bail. Consequently, the interests of justice did not favor the applicant's release on bail, and the application was dismissed.
Source excerpt
Atia v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 73 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 632 (9 July 2024)
The court found that the applicant had sufficiently proved a fixed place of abode within the jurisdiction by providing an LC1 introduction letter and national ID, as required by the Bail Guidelines. The respondent's objections were speculative and unsupported by contrary evidence. The sureties presented were found to be substantial, having provided necessary documentation and demonstrated a direct relationship to the applicant. The court held that the severity of the offence alone does not preclude the grant of bail, and that the applicant's constitutional rights, coupled with compliance with…
Source excerpt
Zura v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 27 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 576 (4 July 2024)
The court found that the applicant had sufficiently proved a fixed place of abode within the jurisdiction by providing corroborated documentary evidence from the clan and LC.1 chairpersons. The applicant presented three substantial sureties, each supported by affidavits, national identification cards, and LC.1 introduction letters, fulfilling the statutory and regulatory requirements. Although the applicant did not advance any exceptional circumstances, the court held that the gravity of the offence and absence of violence did not bar bail, given the constitutional presumption of innocence. T…
Source excerpt
Oriokot and Another v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 6 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 629 (2 July 2024)
The court found that the applicants had demonstrated fixed places of abode within the jurisdiction by providing LC1 introductory letters and supporting affidavits. The applicants presented sureties, two of whom for each applicant were found substantial based on LC1 introductions and documentary proof, while the third was rejected for lack of proper introduction. The court considered the presumption of innocence, the right to liberty, and the need to balance the interests of justice. The mandatory remand period had elapsed, and the offences, though serious, are bailable. The court exercised it…
Source excerpt
Chemutai v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 89 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 602 (28 June 2024)
The High Court at Mbale refused bail to an accused facing rape and murder charges, holding that the offences were grave and the risk of absconding outweighed bail factors.
Ediau and Another v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 4 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 558 (28 June 2024)
The court held that while the applicants have a constitutional right to apply for bail and the offences charged are bailable, the law requires proof of a fixed place of abode within the jurisdiction as a key determinant for granting bail. The applicants failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to prove their fixed and permanent places of abode, as required by Section 15(4)(a) of the Trial on Indictments Act and the Bail Guidelines. The absence of such proof means the applicants have not satisfied the litmus test for bail in capital offences. The application was therefore rejected, bu…
Source excerpt
Okongu and 3 Others v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 14 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 557 (14 June 2024)
The court found that the applicants Okongu Sam, Marufa Ali, and Ogwang Francis had been on remand for over a year without committal, exceeding the 180-day threshold for mandatory bail under Article 23(6)(c) of the Constitution. The applicants demonstrated fixed places of abode within the court's jurisdiction and presented substantial sureties who met the legal requirements. The court exercised its discretion to grant bail, considering the presumption of innocence, the right to liberty, and the need to balance the applicants' rights with the interests of justice. The court imposed reasonable c…
Source excerpt
Onepur v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 40 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 339 (23 April 2024)
The High Court denied bail to an accused facing murder and aggravated robbery charges, holding that he failed to prove a fixed place of abode within the court’s jurisdiction.
