[2017] UGSC 79

[2017] UGSC 79

The court found that the applicant had suffered substantial delay in the hearing of his appeal, which had already occurred and was likely to continue, infringing his right to a fair and speedy hearing under Article 28(1) of the Constitution. The delay was not attributable to the applicant but to procedural circumstances and actions of other parties. The applicant was a first offender, had good conduct, had never attempted to escape, and had produced substantial sureties. The appeal was not frivolous, and the Supreme Court had previously found it proper for hearing. The court held that the considerations of substantial delay, good character, and the production of substantial sureties...

Citation
[2017] UGSC 79
Parties
Applicant: Alenyo Marks; Respondent: Uganda
Court
Supreme Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
7 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Bail Pending Appeal
Outcome
application granted
Judges
Mwondha, JSC
Legal Topics
Bail Pending Appeal, Delay in Appeal Hearing, Rights of Convicted Persons, Fair Hearing, Sureties Requirements
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Bail Pending Appeal Delay in Appeal Hearing Rights of Convicted Persons Fair Hearing Sureties Requirements

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alenyo Marks

Applicant

Uganda

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Bail Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted bail pending the hearing and determination of his appeals.
  2. 2 Whether there is substantial delay in the hearing of the applicant's appeal justifying bail.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient sureties for bail.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had suffered substantial delay in the hearing of his appeal, which had already occurred and was likely to continue, infringing his right to a fair and speedy hearing under Article 28(1) of the Constitution. The delay was not attributable to the applicant but to procedural circumstances and actions of other parties. The applicant was a first offender, had good conduct, had never attempted to escape, and had produced substantial sureties. The appeal was not frivolous, and the Supreme Court had previously found it proper for hearing. The court held that the considerations of substantial delay, good character, and the production of substantial sureties...

Court Disposition

application granted

Orders

  • Applicant to deposit cash bail of UGX 3,000,000.
  • First surety to deposit a certified copy of the certificate of title of his permanent place of abode; surety 3 to deposit a certified copy of the sale agreement of his permanent place of abode; surety 2 to deposit the official identity card of the school in which he teaches.