[2020] UGCA 2138

[2020] UGCA 2138

The Court held that the presumption of innocence does not extend to a person convicted by a competent court; bail pending appeal is not a right but a discretionary remedy. The applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances as required by law and precedent, including grave illness, no objection from the DPP, or advanced age. The applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of a fixed place of abode or compliance with bail terms. The single Justice properly exercised discretion in refusing bail pending appeal, having considered all relevant guidelines and legal principles. The reference was found to lack merit and was dismissed.

Citation
[2020] UGCA 2138
Parties
Appellant: Bob Kasango; Respondent: Uganda
Court
Court of Appeal of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
6 March 2020
Case Number
Criminal Reference 95 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Reference / Reference Against Refusal of Bail Pending Appeal
Outcome
reference dismissed
Judges
Owiny-Dollo, DCJ, Musoke, JA, Barishaki-Cheborion, JA
Legal Topics
Bail Pending Appeal, Presumption of Innocence, Judicial Discretion, Exceptional Circumstances, Economic Crimes, Appeal Procedure
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Bail Pending Appeal Presumption of Innocence Judicial Discretion Exceptional Circumstances Economic Crimes Appeal Procedure

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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bob Kasango

Appellant

Uganda

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Reference / Reference Against Refusal of Bail Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to the presumption of innocence under Article 28(3) of the Constitution after conviction.
  2. 2 Whether the guidelines in Arvind Patel v Uganda for bail pending appeal were properly applied.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant demonstrated exceptional circumstances warranting grant of bail pending appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the presumption of innocence does not extend to a person convicted by a competent court; bail pending appeal is not a right but a discretionary remedy. The applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances as required by law and precedent, including grave illness, no objection from the DPP, or advanced age. The applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of a fixed place of abode or compliance with bail terms. The single Justice properly exercised discretion in refusing bail pending appeal, having considered all relevant guidelines and legal principles. The reference was found to lack merit and was dismissed.

Court Disposition

reference dismissed

Orders

  • The reference against the refusal of bail pending appeal is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.