High Court Reiterates Strict Compliance with Bail Requirements under the Trial on Indictments Act and Constitution (Bail Guidelines), 2022

Waboga David
Jul 24
3 min read

Introduction

In a ruling on bail, delivered on 18th July 2025, the High Court at Kabale dismissed an application for discretionary bail by a 62-year-old murder suspect, emphasizing that although the applicant proved an exceptional circumstance—advanced age—this alone was insufficient to guarantee bail without satisfying the full statutory and discretionary requirements under the law.

The Court, citing Section 15(1) of the Trial on Indictments Act, Cap 25, noted that it has the discretion to grant bail with or without sureties, for such an amount as is reasonable in the circumstances of the case.

The Court further emphasized that under Sections 16(1) and (3), at least one of the three exceptional circumstances must be specifically pleaded in the application for bail. Failure to meet these statutory requirements will result in denial of the application.

The Court also noted that in upholding the Constitution (Bail Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice Directions), 2022, the factor of safety—for the applicant, the community, and the complainants—must be read as a whole and not in isolated parts.

Importantly, the Court stressed that satisfying one exceptional circumstance for the grant of bail does not automatically entitle an applicant to bail.

In this case, the applicant failed to meet the requirements for a favorable exercise of the Court’s discretion, as the prosecution’s uncontroverted evidence indicated that the applicant was likely to abscond if released on bail.

Key Holding

Discretionary Nature of Bail
The Court reaffirmed that bail under Section 15(1) of the Trial on Indictments Act (TIA), Cap 25 is discretionary. The Court may grant bail with or without sureties and impose reasonable conditions based on the circumstances of the case.
Mandatory Requirements under Section 16 TIA
For persons accused of offences listed under Section 16(2), including murder, bail can only be granted if:
- The applicant pleads and proves an exceptional circumstance under Section 16(3)—in this case, advanced age under subsection (c); and
- The applicant proves they will not abscond under Section 16(1)(b).
Risk of Absconding Undermines Bail Request
The Court found that the respondent’s uncontroverted affidavit evidence, that the applicant had earlier fled from justice after committing the offence in October 2024 and was only rearrested in June 2025, indicated a substantial risk of absconding. This negated the Court’s discretion to grant bail.
Constitutional and Guideline-Based Balancing
The Court stressed that bail decisions must uphold the presumption of innocence under Article 28(3)(a) and right to apply for bail under Article 23(6)(a) of the Constitution, but must also consider public interest factors under the Constitution (Bail Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice Directions), 2022, including:
- Safety of the community, the applicant, and complainants;
- Likelihood of absconding;
- Potential for interference with witnesses, among others.
Community Input Must Be Balanced
The Court noted that while the Local Council’s endorsement of bail was commendable, it should have been made with broader community consultation, particularly with the deceased’s widow, whose objection (though not sworn) reflected real community safety concerns.

The application for bail was dismissed without prejudice to future applications. The Court advised the applicant to await trial placement.

Key Takeaway:

Exceptional circumstances like advanced age do not automatically entitle an accused person to bail. Courts will decline bail where there is credible evidence of a flight risk, and all requirements under Sections 15 and 16 of the TIA, as well as the 2022 Bail Guidelines, must be strictly met. Public safety and justice for victims remain central to judicial discretion in bail applications.

Read the full case