High Court Grants Bail After One Year on Remand in Aggravated Robbery Case Affirms Bail Remains a Discretionary Right—Not Automatic—But Must Be Exercised in Accordance With Constitutional Guarantees.

Waboga David
Oct 23
4 min read

Facts

The Applicant, Chepkwurui Ben alias Mzee, was indicted for aggravated robbery, a capital offence under the Penal Code Act, and remanded for over one year without being brought before the High Court for trial. He applied for bail pending trial under Articles 23(6)(a) and 28(3)(a) of the Constitution and Sections 15 and 16 of the Trial on Indictments Act, citing prolonged detention, a fixed abode within the jurisdiction, and the availability of substantial sureties.

The prosecution opposed the application, arguing that the offence was serious and punishable by death, that the Applicant lacked a fixed abode, had insubstantial sureties, and might interfere with witnesses, some of whom were reportedly his children.

Issues

Whether the Applicant had demonstrated a fixed place of abode within the jurisdiction of the court.
Whether the Applicant had presented substantial sureties.
Whether the Applicant’s prolonged detention without trial constituted a ground for release on bail.
Whether the Applicant merited release on bail pending trial.

Legal Representation

For the Applicant, Ms. Nancy Cheptoek, Counsel for the Applicant
For the Respondent, Ms. Maria Nakatudde, State Attorney, Office of the DPP (Mbale Station)

Submissions

Applicant’s Submissions

Counsel Nancy Cheptoek argued that the Applicant has a fixed place of abode, evidenced by an LCI Chairperson’s letter and a NIRA form confirming his NIN. She presented two sureties, Solimo Alfred and Olugembe John, with their introduction letters and national identity cards, asserting their substantiality. She contended that the Applicant’s detention for over one year without trial violated his right to a speedy trial, entitling him to bail. The prosecution’s failure to contest the duration of detention was cited as affirmation of its validity.

Respondent’s Submissions

State Attorney Nakatudde Maria opposed the application, arguing that the Applicant failed to provide a national identity card, only a NIRA form, undermining his claim of a fixed abode. She contended that the sureties did not demonstrate financial capacity to meet bail terms, rendering them insubstantial. The prosecution highlighted the gravity of the aggravated robbery charge, the risk of witness interference due to the Applicant’s familial ties with witnesses, and the fact that the Applicant was committed to the High Court for trial in 2024, negating mandatory bail claims.

Court’s Findings

Justice Dr. Lubega Farouq emphasized that bail is a constitutional right grounded in the presumption of innocence under Article 28(3)(a) and the right to liberty under Article 23(6). He reiterated that these provisions form part of the non-derogable right to a fair hearing under Article 44 of the Constitution.

(a) On Fixed Place of Abode

The Court held that the Applicant’s LCI letter and NIRA form sufficiently demonstrated a traceable address, stating:

“It is imperative to note that in establishing a fixed place of abode, an introduction letter from the Chairperson LCI is deemed to be the most requisite document… corroborated by other documentary proof… However, the court retains the discretion, depending on the circumstances of the case, to consider other factors in granting bail.”

The Court accepted the documents as adequate proof and found that the prosecution’s objection was not sufficient to rebut the Applicant’s averments.

(b) On Substantial Sureties

The Court referred to Paragraph 15(1) of the Bail Guidelines (Practice) Directions, 2022, which sets criteria for determining a surety’s suitability. Justice Farouq observed:

“It would appear to me that the sureties presented by the Applicant pass the suitability test… and therefore I find them to be substantial.”

The familial relationship (father and uncle) and the documentation produced were sufficient.

(c) On Period of Remand

While the Applicant argued he had been detained beyond the 180 days under Article 23(6)(c) and Paragraph 10(1) of the Bail Guidelines, the Court found otherwise, noting he had been committed within six months of arrest. The Judge acknowledged conflicting High Court precedents of Kato Henry v Uganda [2025] UGHCCRD 21 (Muwata, J) and Mulema Ali alias Frank v Uganda [2025] UGHC 717 (Lamuno, J), but emphasized a pragmatic approach:

“Bail in whatever form, be it discretionary or mandatory, is based on conditions which court considers reasonable in the circumstances of a given case.”

(d) On Right to Bail

The Court concluded that the Applicant had met the constitutional and statutory requirements for bail, adding:

“I am convinced that the Applicant has made out a successful case necessitating releasing him on bail.”

Holding

The application was allowed, and the Applicant was granted bail on the following conditions:

Cash bond: UGX 3,000,000.
Each surety: Non-cash bond of UGX 6,000,000.
Deposit: The first surety to deposit a certified land purchase agreement with the Registrar.
Reporting obligation: Applicant to report to the court once every month before the Deputy or Assistant Registrar, starting 23 November 2025.

Key Takeaways

Bail remains a discretionary right—not automatic—but must be exercised in accordance with constitutional guarantees of liberty and presumption of innocence.
An LCI introduction letter, when corroborated by a NIRA document, can suffice as proof of a fixed abode, especially in rural or semi-urban contexts.
Sureties need not prove financial ability in all cases; familial connection and traceable identity can satisfy the substantiality test.
The Court reaffirmed the balancing act between the right to liberty and the interests of justice, emphasizing that prolonged detention should not be used as a form of punishment before conviction.
This ruling contributes to the emerging jurisprudence harmonizing Article 23(6)(c) and the Bail Guidelines, 2022, especially in cases of delayed committal to the High Court.