Mandatory Bail Denied Despite 499 Days on Remand, the High Court at Kabale Reiterates the Balancing Test Between the Rights of the Accused and Public Interest in Mandatory Bail Applications.

Waboga David
Oct 18
4 min read

Facts

Mugarura Roland, the Applicant, was charged with aggravated robbery under Sections 266 and 267(2) of the Penal Code Act, Cap 128, a capital offence.

The charge stemmed from an incident on September 2, 2023, where he allegedly robbed Tindyebwa Frank, a security guard at Baj Petrol Station in Hamurwa Trading Center, Rubanda District, of a motorcycle (Reg. No. UPF 140C Bajaj, valued at five million shillings) belonging to Tukamuhebwa Wence, while armed with a panga, a deadly weapon.

The Applicant was remanded in custody for 499 days before committal to the High Court on January 16, 2025. He applied for bail on July 7, 2025, under Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 028 of 2025, arising from Kisoro Criminal Case No. AA-052 of 2023.

Issues for Determination

Whether the applicant was entitled to mandatory bail under Article 23(6)(c) of the Constitution of Uganda, given that he had spent over 180 days on remand before committal to the High Court.

Legal Representation

For the Applicant, Ms. Agnes Natukunda of Orchid & Co. Advocates
For the Respondent, Mr. Isaac Onyango, State Attorney, Directorate of Public Prosecutions (DPP)

Submissions

Applicant’s Submissions

The Applicant argued his constitutional right to apply for bail under Articles 28(3)(a) and 23(6)(c) of the Constitution, Section 15(1) of the Trial on Indictments Act, Cap 25, and Rule 10(1) of the Constitution (Bail Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions, 2022.

He had been on remand for 499 days before committal, exceeding the 180-day threshold for mandatory bail.

The offence was bailable, and he presented three substantial sureties: Mr. Mukasa Robert (29, businessman/technician), Mr. Tumwekwase Deus (46, education assistant), and Mr. Mujurizi Moses (35, secondary school teacher).

He had a fixed place of abode in Hamurwa Cell, Hamurwa Ward, Hamurwa Town Council, Rubanda District.

The Applicant asserted that granting bail was fair, just, and in the interests of justice.

Respondent’s Submissions

The DPP, through an affidavit by Ms. Noerine Naggayi, opposed the bail application, citing the severity of the offence, which carries a death sentence and involved gross violence with a deadly weapon.

The DPP argued that aggravated robbery was rampant in the region, posing a risk to community safety.

The Respondent contended that no exceptional circumstances justified the Applicant’s release, and his committal to the High Court supported denial of bail.

The Applicant did not file an affidavit in rejoinder to counter the DPP’s claims, an oversight noted by the court.

Court’s Findings

The court made the following findings,

Eligibility for Mandatory Bail:
The court confirmed the Applicant’s eligibility for mandatory bail under Article 23(6)(c), which states:

“Where a person is arrested in respect of a criminal offence, in the case of an offence triable only by the High Court, if that person has been remanded in custody for one hundred and eighty days before the case is committed to the High Court, that person shall be released on bail on such conditions as the court considers reasonable.”

The Applicant had been remanded for 499 days before committal on January 16, 2025, satisfying the constitutional threshold.

Sureties and Abode:
The court found the three sureties substantial and the Applicant’s fixed place of abode uncontested, resolving these administrative issues in the Applicant’s favor.
Public Interest and Complainant’s Rights:
The court emphasized the importance of Guideline 3(e) and (g) of the Bail Guidelines, which aim to “promote the balancing of rights of accused persons with the public interest and the rights of complainants” and “reduce incidences of pre-trial detention.”

The Applicant’s failure to address the DPP’s affidavit (paragraph 6), which raised concerns about rampant aggravated robbery and community safety, was critical. The court noted: “Paragraph 6 of the respondent’s affidavit was not rejoined or opposed by the Applicant. This oversight [weakened] the applicant’s bail application.”
Judicial Discretion and Statutory Framework:
The court referenced Section 17(d) of the Trial on Indictments Act, which allows a judge to deny bail if “satisfied that it is for the protection of the public that he or she should not be released from custody.”
The court also cited its prior decision in Mivumbi Richard v Uganda (Criminal Misc. Application No. 29 of 2025), stating: “The interests of the public also exist, and may countermand this right, and derogation from this right is established by long standing laws of Uganda and further by the Constitution (Bail Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice Directions), 2022.”
The court distinguished the case from Odongo Benedict Isiah v Uganda (Misc. Appl. No. 78 of 2023), where bail was granted due to excessive remand without committal, and Mulema alias Frank v Uganda (Misc. Appl. No. 0059 of 2025), where bail was denied post-committal, noting: “The law places the burden on the state to provide compelling reasons to deny bail once the constitutional threshold for mandatory bail is met.”
Need for Uniformity:
The court underscored Guideline 3(c) of the Bail Guidelines, which seeks “to promote uniformity and consistency by courts when considering bail applications.” It stressed that courts must consider the entire legal framework, including public interest, to avoid inconsistent rulings.

Holding

The court denied the bail application, stating: “I accordingly deny the application for bail, for failure to take into account the public interest and that of the complainants, whose views must be considered in granting bail.” The Applicant was granted liberty to file a fresh application without prejudice, and the State was directed to expedite the trial at the next session.

Key Takeaways

An accused person remanded for over 180 days before committal to the High Court is entitled to mandatory bail under Article 23(6)(c), but this right is not absolute and must be balanced against public interest and complainant safety.
Failure to respond to State averments regarding public risk may undermine an applicant’s case, even when the 180-day period has elapsed.
The Bail Guidelines (2022) require courts to balance the rights of the accused, complainant, and the community, ensuring uniformity and consistency.
Courts are urged to exercise discretion judiciously and not treat bail applications as mere formalities.
Courts must consider the perspectives of complainants and local authorities, as demonstrated in the Mivumbi precedent, to protect public interest.