LAW DEVELOPMENT CENTRE

DEPARTMENT OF POST GRADUATE LEGAL

STUDIES AND LEGAL AID

CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS TEACHING

MANUAL
LAW DEVELOPMENT CENTRE

i
 Contents

Contents.......................................................................................................................................................ii
SUBJECT: CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS.................................................................................................1
1.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................................................1
1.2 Course Justification..........................................................................................................................1
1.3 Aim of the Course.............................................................................................................................1
1.4 Course Objectives............................................................................................................................1
TERM ONE..................................................................................................................................................2
1.5 MODULE ONE: PRE-TRIAL AND TRIAL PROCEEDINGS IN MAGISTRATES’ COURTS 2
1.5.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................2
1.5.2 Aims of the Module........................................................................................................2
1.5.3 Learning outcomes........................................................................................................2
1.5.4 Outline of Content.........................................................................................................2
1. Directing investigations: Office of the Director Public Prosecutions...................................2
TERM TWO................................................................................................................................................22
1.6 MODULE TWO: TRIAL PROCEEDINGS IN THE HIGH COURT..........................................22
1.6.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................22
1.6.2 Aims of the Module......................................................................................................22
1.6.3 Learning Outcomes.....................................................................................................22
1.6.4 Outline of Content.......................................................................................................22
TERM THREE............................................................................................................................................34
5.7 MODULE THREE: POST TRIAL PROCEEDINGS...................................................................34
5.7.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................34
5.7.2 Learning outcomes......................................................................................................34
5.7.3 Outline of Content.......................................................................................................35

ii
 SUBJECT: CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
1.1 Introduction
Criminal Proceedings is a core course on the Bar Course focusing on developing
various skills for conducting criminal proceedings. It particularly focuses on the skills of
managing pre-trial, trial and post-trial criminal proceedings as well as those of drafting
the appropriate legal documents for each stage in the process. It includes the
application of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) approaches in criminal
proceedings. The course introduces students to the skills of dealing with the changing
trends of crime and the nature of investigations such as the use of forensic, electronic
and digital methods. It also introduces students to the use of digital technology such as
the Electronic Court Case Management Information System (ECCMIS) in criminal
proceedings.

1.2 Course Justification

Criminal Justice is essential in any functional society. It is, therefore, important to
expose LDC students to the processes to develop the required skills in criminal
proceedings to enable them effectively participate in the day-to-day administration of
justice.

1.3 Aim of the Course

To develop skills required among prospective Lawyers/Advocates and judicial officers in
the performance of various roles in the administration of criminal justice.

1.4 Course Objectives

By the end of the course, students should be able to:
1. Advise on the procedures used to conduct investigations related to various criminal
offences;
2. Manage pre-trial criminal proceedings;
3. Manage trial criminal proceedings;
4. Manage post-trial criminal proceedings;
5. Draft the legal documents required in the administration of criminal proceedings;
6. Resolve problems in criminal proceedings;
7. Recognise and deal with ethical issues relating to Criminal Proceedings.

1
TERM ONE
1.5 MODULE ONE: PRE-TRIAL AND TRIAL PROCEEDINGS IN MAGISTRATES’
COURTS

1.5.1 Introduction
This module will equip students with skills required to manage pre-trial proceedings,
which will involve; police investigations, arrests, searches, recording statements of
witnesses and suspects, evaluating evidence and preferring charges. This will prepare
students for the next phase, the trial. Under trial proceedings, students will be exposed
to skills required to manage proceedings in a trial. It includes taking of plea, examination
in chief and cross examination by defence and re-examination. It also covers
submissions by defence and response by prosecution and re-joinder and ruling by court
on a prima-facie case, ruling by court leading to acquittal or accused put on his defence.
Students will also be equipped with skills in judgment leading to acquittal or conviction
and then allocutus and sentencing in case of a conviction.

1.5.2 Aims of the Module

The aims of this module are to:
1. Develop ability to advice on pre-trial and trial proceedings;
2. Develop ability to prosecute criminal matters up to the Court of Appeal;
3. Develop ability to recognize ethical issues relating to prosecution of criminal matters.

1.5.3 Learning outcomes

By the end of this module students should be able to;
1. Examine various legal principles relating to pre-trial and trial proceedings in
Magistrates’ courts;
2. Direct police investigations and compilation of a police file;
3. Interview suspects, accused persons, children in conflict with the law and witnesses;
4. Prosecute criminal matters in Magistrates’ Court;
5. Draft the relevant court documents in pre-trial proceedings;
6. Recognise and deal with ethical issues relating to prosecution of criminal matters in
Magistrates’ Courts.

1.5.4 Outline of Content

1. Directing investigations: Office of the Director Public Prosecutions
The state has the cardinal responsibility of enforcing criminal law and to bring the
offenders to justice. The responsibility arises from its inherent duty to protect the public.

2
When a crime has been committed or when it is suspected to have been committed, it is
important to establish the facts surrounding it, which calls for investigations.
Investigations involve assembling of evidence by the agency concerned.

The responsibility to investigate criminal offences mainly lies with the Police. The
Uganda Police Force, under Article 212 (c) of the Constitution, has the responsibility to
prevent and detect crime. However, it is the role of the Office of the Director Public
Prosecutions (DPP) to direct police through the investigation process.

- See Article 120, 211, and 212 of the Constitution

- Magistrates Court Act, Sections 43, 121, 169
- The Police Act, Section 4 and Part V
- Cases
- Uganda v Lubega and others HCT-00-CR-SC-0635/2020

2. Summons, interviewing of witnesses and recording of witness statements

To procure the attendance of a person suspected to hold relevant information related to
a criminal act, the police may require such a person to report to police.

Thus any person likely to have information in relation to the commission of an alleged
crime may be summoned to police for interview and recording of witness statements.

(a) Summons
- Sections 44 – 53 of MCA (For e.g. forms and content of summons, how
summons are served, proof of service when serving officer not present,
appearance by a corporation and Disobedience of summons, etc.).

- See the case of Ladek V. R. (1968) HCD No. 464

(b) Interviewing of witnesses

The purpose of interviewing witnesses is to gather information. A witness statement is
an individual’s account of the facts and events of relevant issues that occurred in a
dispute. Although a witness can give their statement orally or in writing, it must
eventually be put into a written document and signed by the witness in order for it to be
used as proof or evidence in a case.

(c) Recording witness statements

The key purpose of taking a statement from a witness is to ensure that an accurate
record of the recollection of an event exists to both support someone’s claim, and to use
as evidence in court.

3
3. Conducting Arrests, searches, seizure, recovery, preservation and
management of exhibits and scenes of crimes
This part covers the process of criminal investigation in relation to arrests of suspects
and collection and storage of evidence. Who can arrest and how? Who can conduct a
search and how? Search with or without a warrant, recovery, storage and disposal of
exhibits and management of crime scenes.

(a) Conducting arrests

An arrest means to deprive a person of his or her liberty by a legal authority or at the
minimum by an apparent legal authority. The purpose is to compel such a person to
appear in court to answer a criminal charge or prevent a person from causing injury to a
person or him/ herself or to testify against another person.

A warrant of arrest is a written order issued and signed by a magistrate and addressed
to a police officer or a specifically identified person named commanding the person to
arrest the body of the person accused, named in it.

- Article 23 of the Constitution (Exceptions to deprivation of personal liberty).

- Sections 54 – 68, MCA (Warrant of arrest including warrant after issue of
summons, disobedience of summons, form, contents and duration of warrant of
arrest; court may direct security to be taken; warrants, to whom directed;
warrants directed to landholders, etc; execution of warrant directed to police
officer; procedure on execution of warrant; where warrant of arrest may be
executed; procedure on arrest of person outside jurisdiction and irregularities in
warrant).
- Section 23 – 25, Police Act
- Arrest S. 2 CPCA
- Arrest by police, S. 314 CPCA
- Arrest by private persons, S. 16 CPCA
- Arrest by justice of peace, S. 127 CPCA
- Arrest by Magistrate, S. 17-18 CPCA
- Preventive Arrest – Section 24, Police Act
- Arrest without warrant. (They occur where the decision to arrest without the
sanction of courts i.e by police officers and private citizens. Under the

4
 circumstances, arrests are based on the laws which allow them to make the
decisions themselves- Police Act, S. 23; Arrest for disciplinary offences – S. 56.
Disposal of arrested person CPCA S. 14 & 16).
Cases:
See, Kiiza Besigye v Attorney General Constitutional Petition No. 52 of 2011 on
preventive arrest.
See, Uganda v Ip Buko Difasi and D/CPL Karuhize Michael HCT-05-CR-CSC-0123-
2009 – on illegal arrest.

Uganda v Kinyera & 3 Ors (Criminal Session 374 of 2018) [2018] UGHCCRD 297
(13 December 2018). Generally, police entries onto premises to conduct searches or
arrests that are not supported by a warrant are unlawful. The general rule is that
persons are to be secure in their homes except where there is a warrant based on
reasonable suspicion.

Privilege from arrest

President: The Constitution, Art 98(4) (the president is privileged from arrest while
holding office. However proceedings may be instituted after leaving office cf under
international law under the ICC statute).

Diplomats: Shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention.

(b) Searches, Seizure and recovery of exhibits

In the process of investigation, the police may conduct searches. Where relevant items
such as exhibits are discovered in the search process, the same can be seized and
exhibited.

Article 27, Constitution of Uganda provides for the right to privacy of the person, home
and other property. Any search not conducted in accordance with the law is a violation
of this right.
- See sections 69 – 74, MCA
- Sections 3 – 9, CPCA

5
 - Sections 26, 27, 29, Police Act
- Women are to be searched by women. See section 8, CPCA
- Search to be conducted in the presence of at least the local leaders. See,
Kiggundu and Others vs. Uganda Crim Appeal Number25/2000

Uganda v Kinyera & 3 Ors (Criminal Session 374 of 2018) [2018] UGHCCRD 297
(13 December 2018) Without a warrant, the police will be required to justify their entry
onto the private property. The home may be a castle but it is not a fortress. Warrantless
searches are allowed only under a power of entry within certain strict, exigent
circumstances (circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that
entry was imminent and inevitable), subject to the requirement that exigent
circumstances do not justify a warrantless search when the exigency was “created” or
“manufactured” by the conduct of the police.

(c) Storage, preservation and management of exhibits

- Constitution of Uganda, Article 27
- MCA: s. 69 -74, (searches) 201 – 203 (disposal of exhibits)
- CPCA: s. 3-9, 29
- Police Act: s. 24 – 28

Cases:
In the case of Uganda V Albino Ajok (1974) HCB 176, It was held that the exhibit were
badly handled by the police inspector and no reliance whatsoever could be placed on
them because the inspector calling the witness Ojul to Identify the exhibits the inspector
instead sent the exhibits to Ojul’s house by the one William Okello who was not a police
man and did not give evidence for Ojul to identify which broke the chain of handling the
exhibits.

- Kityo v Uganda (1967) EA 23

- Onyango v Uganda (1967) EA 386
- Tenywa v Uganda (1967) EA 102
- Simon Musoke v R (1958) EA 715
- Ug v Kakooza (1984) HCB 1
- Ug v Twaha Muyangu [1975] HCB 329

6
 - Mohanlal Trivedi vs. R [1967] EA 355
- Tumuhairwe vs. Ug [1967] EA 328
- Ug vs. Musisi [1977] HCB 298
- Kiwanuka & Anor vs. Ug [1977] HCB 1
- Ug vs. Mukasa [1978] HCB 318
- Ndege vs. Ug [1979] HCB 162 (CA)
- Christopher Lubaale vs. Uganda [1995] VI KALR 36
- Uganda v Ajok 1974 (procedure for recovery of exhibit)
- Uganda v Gregory Mugisha – Exhibits

(d) Management of scenes of crime

A crime scene is a place where a crime has been committed wholly of partially. It must
be cordoned off until the investigating officer is satisfied that all evidence required has
been gathered.

‘Crime scene management and forensic investigation’ shows how the actions of police at a
crime scene can affect the availability and efficacy of forensic tests later in the investigation. The
purpose of crime scene management is to control, preserve, record, and recover evidence from
the scene of an incident. Any evidence removed from a scene by investigators must be
packaged and labelled correctly to prevent injury and contamination. Once forensic analysis
begins, it is important to ensure that the questions asked are investigative and not purely
scientific. It is sometimes useful to bring the forensic specialist to the crime scene itself.

Given that crimes are increasingly being committed with increasing sophistication,
investigating officers have recently relied on technical evidence to prove particular
aspects of crime, such as taking soil sample, phone call print outs, blood samples. To
prove such, experts are summoned to guide courts. For example, pathologists, ballistic
experts, figure print experts, computer experts (in case of cybercrime) using appropriate
forms.

Police exhibits gathered must be carefully handled and kept, maintaining their integrity.
In case of crime scene a sketch plan should be drawn.

(e) Interrogation of suspects and recording of statements from suspects

After suspects have been identified and arrested, they will be interrogated by police in
order to get the relevant information from them. In this process, the rights of suspects
must be observed.

7
 - See Article 23 and 24 of the Constitution
- Recording of Confessions
o Sections 23 – 29 of the Evidence Act
- Cases
- UGANDA VERSUS MUTAHANZO (1988-1990) HCB 6: It was held that a
confession connotes an unequivocal admission of having committed an act which
in law amounts to an offence or at any rate admits the facts that substantially
constitutes a crime.
- Waswa Vs Uganda ( 2002) 2 EA 667
- Uganda v Mutahanzo (1988-1990) HCB 6
- Swami versus King Emperor (1939) 1 ALL ER 396
- Babyebuza Swaibi v Uganda Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 2000
- Festo Asenua and Kakooza Denis Vs Uganda. criminal appeal No.34 of 1996
(Procedure of Recording a Confession)
- Confession taken before Magistrate – Beronda vs. Uganda (1974)H.C.B

5. Constitutional rights of suspects while in police custody

While in police custody, a suspect is still entitled to his/her rights as provided for under
the Constitution.
- See Articles 23 and 24 of the Constitution
- Right to be kept in a place authorized by law – See Article 23(2)
- Right to be informed of the reasons for the arrest – See Article 23(3)
- Right to be brought to court within 48 hours – See Article 23(4)
- Cases
o Bandonda Nicholas v AG and Anor
o Rights Trumpet & 2 Others v AIGP Asan Kasingye & 5 Others AND
Mucunguzi Abel & 9 Others v Attorney General & 2 Others
(CONSOLIDATED MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 17 & 3 OF 2017)
[2020] UGHC 42 (15 May 2020);
- In the case of Esoko 3 Ors v Attorney General 4 Ors, (Miscellaneous Cause
No 42 of 2019) 2020 UGHCCD 79 (30 April 2020) the court stated that the
subject of the preservation of personal liberty is so crucial in the Constitution that
any derogation from it, where it has to be done as a matter of unavoidable
necessity, the Constitution ensures that such derogation is just temporary and
not indefinite.
- Wanyoto v Sgt Ouma and Another, (Civil Appeal No 91 of 2021) 2022 UGCA
185 (8 July 2022) the accused was detained at police for mother than 30 days

8
 without being taken to court to be charged. The court held that this was a
violation of the human rights of the suspect
- Nantume v Uganda, (Criminal Appeal 130 of 2017) 2019 UGHCCRD 9 (22
February 2019). The suspect/accused, a lady, who was under police custody,
was searched by a male police officer who molested her and almost stripped her
naked. Court noted that this was a violation of human rights.
o
6. Defenses available to accused persons in criminal proceedings
In the case of Uganda v Omony (Criminal Session 61 of 2017) [2017] UGHCCRD 3
(31 July 2017) Court stated thus: “The law is that the court is required to investigate all
the circumstances of the case including any possible defences even though they were
not duly raised by the accused for as long as there is some evidence before the court to
suggest such a defence. The court should consider any defence that on the evidence
has "an air of reality." The threshold test is met when there is an evidentiary basis for
the defence which, if believed, would allow a reasonable court properly directed, to
acquit. A trial judge has a duty to consider defences which are raised on the evidence,
even where the accused or his or her counsel does not raise them.”

There are different defenses available to an accused person. These include Necessity,
Consent, Mistake of Law, Mistake of fact, Alibi, Provocation, Self defense, Defence of
others, Defence of property, Use of force by police, Lawful Orders, Compulsion,
Presidential pardon, Amnesty, Double jeopardy and Diplomatic immunity, among
others.

(a) Accident:
See section 8, Penal Code Act
- Uganda v Omony (Criminal Session 61 of 2017) [2017] UGHCCRD 3 (31 July
2017)

(b) Claim of right

See Section 7, PCA
- Edonyu v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2012) [2013] UGHCCRD 94 (7
August 2013)
- Nasibika Peter Wejuli v Uganda (HCT-04-CR 40 of 2009) [2010] UGHC 148 (10
August 2010)

(c) Insanity
Sections 10 and 11, PCA
- An insane person is not criminally responsible. Omaka v Uganda
(Miscellaneous Criminal Application 9 of 2017) [2018] UGHCCRD 91 (13 April
2018)
9
- Uganda v Iranya (Criminal Sessions Case 121 of 2017) [2018] UGHCCRD 68 (9
March 2018)

(d) Intoxication
See section 12, PCA
- Uganda v Owora (Criminal Session 67 of 2004) [2005] UGHCCRD 2 (6 January
2005)

(e) Compulsion
See Sections 14 and 17, PCA
- Uganda v Maido Robert & 2 Other, Case No: HCT-03-CR-SC-0720 OF 1999

(f) Consent,
- Consent is a complete defence to Rape: See Uganda v Kusemererwa (HCT-01-
CR-SC 15 of 2014) [2015] UGHCCRD 12 (25 November 2015)

(g) Mistake of Law,

See Section 6 of the Penal Code Act

(h) Mistake of fact,

See section 9, PCA
- Uganda v Kinyera & 3 Ors (Criminal Session 374 of 2018) [2018] UGHCCRD
297 (13 December 2018)
- Yefusa Khamali v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 29 of 1989) [1991] UGSC 4 (19
June 1991)

(i) Alibi,
- See the case of Uganda V Wanyama Ivan and 3 Others (351 of 2020) [2022]
UGHCCRD 23 (1 June 2022)

(j) Provocation,
See sections 192, 193 and 194, Penal Code Act.
- Uganda v Omony (Criminal Session 61 of 2017) [2017] UGHCCRD 3 (31 July
2017)
- Uganda v Owora (Criminal Session 67 of 2004) [2005] UGHCCRD 2 (6 January
2005)

(k) Diminished Responsibility

- See the case of Uganda v Owora (Criminal Session 67 of 2004) [2005]
UGHCCRD 2 (6 January 2005)

10
 (l) Self defense, Defence of others, Defence of property,
See section 15, Penal Code Act
- Uganda v Omony (Criminal Session 61 of 2017) [2017] UGHCCRD 3 (31 July
2017)
- Uganda v Ijjo (Criminal Session 76 of 2017) [2018] UGHCCRD 52 (27 February
2018)

(m) Use of force by police,

See section 16, PCA

(n) Presidential pardon, Amnesty,

See Article 28(10), Constitution of Uganda

(o) Double jeopardy

See Article 28(9) Constitution of Uganda, Section 18, PCA

(p) Children
Children below the age of 12 cannot be criminally responsible.
See Section 88, Children Act

(q) Diplomatic immunity

(r) Necessity.
(s) Lawful Orders, Compulsion

7. Pre-trial remedies available to suspects

There are different ways to secure the liberty of an accused person before the person
has been charged/indicted before a Court of Law. The Rationale is the presumption of
innocence of the suspect, as provided for under Article 28(3) of the Constitution.

These include police bond, unconditional release, court bond and administrative
complaint to the DPP.

i. Police bond; See Police Act, Section 24, 38

ii. Unconditional release. See Police Act, Section 25
iii. Court bond. See MCA, Section 57, 16,
iv. Administrative complaint to DPP. A suspect can formally lodge a complaint to
the office of the DPP

11
Under Article 120(5) of the constitution, the DPP is required in the exercise of his or her
powers which include to supervise investigations by police under Article 120 (3) (a) of
the constitution, to ensure that the interests of the administration of justice are met and
that the legal process is not abused.

Thus, a party who feels like the police is violating their rights by holding them beyond
the 48 hours in custody, may have the representative of the person write to the DPP by
formal letter requesting them to intervene and the DPP may intervene under Article
120(5) of the Constitution 1995.

8. Perusal of police files and identification of offences and their ingredients

It is the responsibility of State Attorneys and Prosecutors under the office of the DPP to
peruse police files for the purpose of identifying which offences have been committed.
- See Constitution of Uganda, 1995, Art. 28 (7), and (12)
- The Penal Code Act – for the particular offenses and their ingredients

9. Evaluation of evidence and the decision to prosecute

It is the responsibility of State Attorneys and Prosecutors under the office of the DPP to
peruse police files for the purpose of ascertaining whether there is sufficient evidence to
support the charges and whether further investigation is required. This will inform the
decision on whether to prosecute.
- See Constitution of Uganda, Article 28(3)
- Evidence Act, Section 101
- The Penal Code Act – for the particular offenses and their ingredients
- Cases
o Woolmington v. DPP (1935) AC 462
o Rapheal v R (1973) E.A 473
o Kazibwe Kassim vs. Uganda (2001-2005) 2 HCB 11
o Miller vs Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372, the prosecution
evidence should be of such standard as to leave no other logical
explanation to be derived from the fact that indeed the accused committed
the offence.

10. Drafting charges, sanctioning and consenting to charges

Texts: See Ayume: Ch. 7; Odoki; Ch.11;
Legislation: See Sections 42, 85-88, & 132, of the MCA

i. Charges

12
Commencement of Criminal Proceedings – Section 42, MCA. According to section
42 (6) (a) of the Magistrate Court Act criminal proceedings may be instituted by
presenting a charge before the magistrate by public prosecutor or police officer.

A trial without a charge is a nullity because the accused person will not know the case
he is facing. Sir Udo Udoma held in the case of Judagi and Others vs West Nile
District Administration that the failure to frame a charge was a fundamental mistake
and the trial was declared a nullity.

ii. Contents of a Charge:

- See Section 88 of the MCA
iii. Charge sheet – Police Form 53
iv. Cases
- R v Timbukiza s/o Kiyonga (1958) EA 212
- Judge & Ors v West Nile Administration (1963) EA 406
- R v Wandera (1948) 15 EACA 105
- Ug v Lakol (1986) HCB 27
- R v Male (1963) EA 471
- Kimeze & Anor. V Uganda (1983) HCB 9
- Ug v Ndondo & 2 Ors. (1985) HCB 3
- Balinda v Ug (1992-93) HCB 41
- Matu v Ug (1951) EACA 311
- Ug vs. Samwiri Baligeya [1977] HCB 223
- Judagi & Ors vs. West Nile District Administration [1963] EA 406
- Kayondo vs. Ug (1992 – 1993) HCB 41
- Ug vs. Ndondo & 2 Ors [1985] HCB 3
- Ug vs. Paulo Muwanga (1988 – 90) HCB 72
- Ug. William Ibwokital [1980] HCB 3
- Stephen Kisuwa & Anor vs. Ug [1980] HCB 95
- Ug vs. Katabazi [1978] HCB 4
- Ug vs. Mpaya [1975] HCB 245
- Ug vs. Byaruhanga [1975] HCB 258

13
 - Ug vs. Matovu (1983) HCB 27
- Kimaze & Anor. vs. Uganda (1983) HCB 9
- Koti vs. R (1962) EA 437
- Opale vs. R (1962) EA 661
- Ug vs.Sebaale (1986) HCB 36
- Avone vs. Ug [1969] EA 129
- Ug vs. James Bitambe [1983] HCB 17
- Ug vs. Robert & Anor (1969) EA 622
- Opale vs. R (1962) EA 611
- Ug vs. Keneri Opidi (1965) EA 614
- Abdul Rasul G. Subur vs. R [1958] EA 126
- Harbans Singh vs. R[1958] EA 199
- Ug vs. Bwambale & Anor [1979] HCB 254
- Saidi vs R [1969] EA 280
- Ludwike vs. R [1967} EA 763
- Ug vs.Okello [1985]hcb 13
- Shah vs. R [1960] EZ 562
- Ug vs. Ssebaale [1986] HCB 230
- Ug vs. Bitambe [1983] HCB 17

v. Joinder of charges / counts – see Section 86, MCA

- Yolamu Okecho & Anor v Uganda High Court Criminal Appeal No.
119 OF 1976, any offences, whether felonies or misdemeanours, may
be charged together in the same charge if the offences charged are
founded on same facts.
- Giraido M Kasujja V Uganda [1971] ULR 34 it was held that where
two counts are founded on the same facts and involve the same
property such charges are bad in law. The accused should not have
been charged with receiving or retaining stolen property yet it is
alleged that he broke into a house and stole that property. The second

14
 count of receiving or retaining stolen property ought to have been in
the alternative;
vi. Joinder of persons – see Section 87, MCA.
- Uganda Vs Akai s/o Eloloyi & Ors High Court Criminal Revision
No. 67 of 1978 It was held that criminal liability is basically, individual
and not collective or joint and several, except in certain cases where
common intention is proved against the accused. A joinder of offenders
is a practice of convenience for the trial of accused persons who
participated in the commission of one legislation offence. It is not
intended that all the jointly accused must be convicted or acquitted; It
is still the duty of the prosecution to prove their case against each of
the accused to the required standard;

vii. Alternative Charges

- It is trite law that where a charge contains more than one count, they
must be numbered consecutively. But in certain cases, it is proper to
lay alternative charges where prosecution is not sure which offences in
law the evidence will prove. This means that if prosecution is not sure
whether the conduct of the accused amounts to theft of property or
obtaining property by false pretences, since these two offences are
cognate ie of the same species, once can be charged as an alternative
to the other. It must be noted however, when charging in the
alternative, the more serious offences should be the main charge and
the less serious offence be in the alternative.

11. Constitutional mandate of the DPP and the exercise of prosecutorial

discretion.
The office of the Director for Public Prosecution (DPP) plays a pivotal role in the
process of criminal prosecution. It is charged with the duty to direct police in carrying out
investigation effectively, to commence and discontinue criminal proceedings. The DPP
has the discretion to decide whether to prosecute.
- See Art. 120, of the Constitution
- Sections 43, 121, 169, MCA
- Prosecutorial duties of the DPP. See Naphatal Were and John Paul Basabose
vs AG. Consolidated Constitutional Petitions No. 42 and 52 of 2012
- Uganda v Lubega and others HCT-00-CR-SC-0635/2020

12. IGG’s mandate to prosecute corruption cases

15
The Inspector General of Government is mandated to institute and prosecute criminal
cases relating to corruption.
- See the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995 as amended; Articles 223
to 232.
- The Anti-Corruption Act, No. 6 of 2009 as amended, Ss. 2, 11, 19, 20, 22, 51,
33,34,36,37,41,49,50
- Prof. Gilbert Balibaseka Bukenya vs AG, Const. Petition No. 30 of 2011

13. Various modes of commencing criminal prosecutions

Section 42 of the MCA lays down the various modes and provides that the
proceedings may be instituted in one of the following ways;
i. By a police officer bringing a person arrested with or without a warrant before a
magistrate upon a charge; or
ii. By a public prosecutor or a police officer laying a charge against a person before
a magistrate and requesting the issue of a warrant or summons compelling the
person therein to come and answer the charge;
iii. By any person other than a public prosecutor or police officer who has
reasonable cause to believe that an offence has been committed

UGANDA. V. PHILLIP ULEGO: Criminal Review 306/66, Court held in context that no
Private person has a right to appear before court to prosecute; however, he or she
should lodge a complaint on oath accompanied with a charge sheet not on PF 53 but on
the headed paper of his or her advocate’s firm.

1. 14. Evidence and the decision to prosecute;

2. After perusing the police file and finding that there is sufficient evidence to
sustain the charge, then the State Attorney or Prosecutor will make the decision
on whether to prosecute. See Naphatal Were and John Paul Basabose vs AG.
Consolidated Constitutional Petitions No. 42 and 52 of 2012
3. Burden of Proof
4. Under Article 28(3) (a) of the Constitution, every person charged with a criminal
offense shall be presumed to be innocent until proved guilty or until that. it is
therefore the duty of the prosecution to adduce sufficient evidence to prove all
the ingredients of the offence.
5. See Section 101 of the Evidence Act – He who alleges must prove.
6. person has pleaded guilty
7. Burden of accused to establish his/her defence – see Section 105, Evidence Act

16
 8. Woolmington vs D.P.P. [1935] AC 462, court held that in criminal cases, it is
always the duty of the prosecution to prove the case against an accused beyond
reasonable doubt. Besides, the court can only base a conviction on the strength
of the prosecution’s case, and not the weakness in the accused’s defense.

i. Standard of Proof
- The standard of proof in criminal cases is that all the ingredients of the offense
must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. See – Woolmington v DPP
ABDU NGOBI V UGANDA, S.C.Cr APPEAL NO. 10 OF 1991 Held: ‘Evidence of the
prosecution should be examined and weighed against the evidence of the defense so
that a final decision is not taken until all the evidence has been considered. The proper
approach is to consider the strength and weaknesses of each side, weigh the evidence
as a whole, apply the burden of proof as always resting upon the prosecution, and
decide whether the defense has raised a reasonable doubt that the prosecution’s case
is true and accurate, the accused must be convicted, but if the defense has created
doubt, the accused must be acquitted’’

15. Plea Taking and Types of Pleas

A plea is an answer to a charge i.e. an admission or denial of a charge. The rationale
for taking plea is the presumption of innocence until the person is proved guilty – Article
28(3) of 1995 of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda.

Types of Pleas
a) Plea of guilty – See section 124(1) and (2) MCA
- Procedure of recording a plea of guilty – see Adan V Republic (1973) EA 445
- In Charles Ungao Vs Uganda [1970] ULR 17, it was held that where an
accused admits the truth of a charge, his admission should be recorded as nearly
as possible in the words used by him
- Uganda V AYW, HCT-OO-CR-SC-0422-2020. The Court laid
down guidelines to be followed while explaining charges where a suspect
appears to be young.

b) Plea of not guilty

- Procedure on plea of not guilty – see Section 126 MCA
c) Plea of Autrefois Convict – See Article 28(9)
d) Plea of pardon – see Article 28(10)
e) Plea of Autrefois Acquit – See Article 28(9)
- Tororo Town Council V P M Luande [1971] ULR 31, the doctrine of autrefois
acquit will apply where the defendant has been put in peril for the same offence
both in fact and law as that with which he has previously been charged.

17
Legislation
Constitution of Uganda Article 28
Magistrates Court Act Sections 124 and 126

Other Cases
Uganda Vs Olet and Anor (1991) ACB 13
Kamundi V republic (1973) 1 EA 540

16. Constitutional rights of accused persons while on remand

After the accused person has been formally charged in Court, they are always
remanded to prison pending trial, unless they have been released on bail. During this
time, they are still entitled to their rights.
- See Articles 23, 24, 28 of the Constitution
- Uganda v Gulindwa Paul, HCT-00-AC-0005 – 2015 – Accused entitled to be
tried in his/her presence.
- Uganda v Mugisha Francis others. Criminal Session 299 of 2019
- Stella Nyanzi v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 79 of 2019) [2020] UGHCCRD 1 (20
February 2020) – Right to a fair trial
- Rights Trumpet & 2 Others v AIGP Asan Kasingye & 5 Others AND Mucunguzi
Abel & 9 Others v Attorney General & 2 Others (CONSOLIDATED
MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 17 & 3 OF 2017) [2020] UGHC 42 (15 May
2020);
- Dr.Kizza Besigye & Ors Vs Attorney General, ((Const. Petition No.7 Of
2007)) [2010] UGCC 6 (12 October 2010) it was held that court cannot sanction
any continued prosecution of the petitioners where during the proceedings, the
human rights of the petitioners has been violated. No matter how strong the
evidence against them may be, no fair trial can be achieved and any subsequent
trials would be a waste of time and an abuse of court process.

The Right to apply for Bail in Magistrates Courts

Bail is an agreement or recognizance between the accused and his sureties if any on
one hand and the court on the other that the accused will pay a certain sum of money
fixed by the court should he fail to appear to attend his trial on a certain date. It is a
constitutional right to ally for bail under Article 23(6)
i. Considerations for bail – see Section 77
ii. Mandatory bail – see Article 23(6)(b)
iii. Bail Pending Revision – see Section 221(4)

Legislation
- Constitution of the Republic of Uganda Article 23(6)
- Magistrates Court Act, Sections 75 – 84

18
 - The Judicature (Criminal Procedure) (Applications) Rules S.I 13-8
- Bail Guidelines

Cases
1. Foundation for Human rights Initiative vs. Attorney General, Const. Pet.No.20 of
2005 (unreported).
2. D.P.P vs Col, Rtd. Kizza Besigye, Const. Ref.No.20 of 2005 (Unreported).
3. CHARLES ONYANGO OBBO AND ANDREW MWENDA VERSUS UGANDA
(1997)5 KALR 25 High Court was empowered to interfere with the discretion
of the lower court while granting bail under S.75(4) (a) MCA where it is
shown that the discretion was not exercised judiciously.
4. Foundation for Human Rights Initiative v A.g Const Petition No 20/ 2006.

17. Examination of witnesses

Examination of witnesses is the process of leading witnesses to give their oral testimony
in Court. Apart from the witness statements recorded by police, all witnesses are
required to give evidence orally in court.
- There is no particular number of witnesses required. See Section 133 Evidence
Act
- As to who may testify, see Sections 117 – 132, Evidence Act.
- As to examination of witnesses, see Sections 134 – 166, Evidence Act
i. Examination in-chief – see Section 136(1) Evidence Act
ii. Cross Examination – See section 136(2) Evidence Act
a. There are 3 aims of cross examination
 To elicit further facts which are favourable to the cross examining
party;
 To test and if possible cast doubt on the evidence given by the
witness in chief;
 To impeach the credibility of the witness.

iii. Re-examination – See section 136(3) Evidence Act

iv. Order of Examination – See section 137 EA.
v. Cases

18. Strict Liability Offenses / Statutory Offenses

In strict liability crimes, the prosecution is only bound to establish actus reus.
Uganda v Dr Richard Ndyomugyenyi & 2 Ors (CR-SC 3 of 2010) [2010]
UGHC 49 (31 August 2010):

19
Except for cases of strict liability our criminal justice system requires that besides the
act, actus reus, there must be a guilty mind that is mens rea, Strict liability is found in
legislation dealing with matters such as road traffic offences, health and safety, pollution
control, possession of dangerous articles such as weapons and drugs and currency
offenses.
Cases
- Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v Attorney-General for Hong Kong [1985] 2 All ER
503
- Uganda Vs Lutoti & 2 Others MBALE HCCA 20/ 2011- Kawesa. J held that A
person shall be liable if found without authority under the law to supply,
distribute or hold restricted or classified drugs.
- Kyakuragaha vs Uganda CACA NO. 51 OF 2014 – Canine Evidence – dogs
- Uganda v Muheirwe and Anor HCT-05-CR-CN-0011 of 2012 – Admissibility of
Dog Evidence

19. Cyber Crimes

Cybercrime is criminal activity that either targets or uses a computer, a computer
network or a networked device.
- See the Computer Misuse Act, 2011
- Stella Nyanzi v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 79 of 2019) [2020] UGHCCRD 1 (20
February 2020)

20. Jurisdiction and sentencing powers of the various Magistrates’ courts

Jurisdiction is the power of court to adjudicate on a matter. Jurisdiction is a creature of
stature. A court cannot confer upon itself jurisdiction it does not have.
Any proceedings without jurisdiction are a nullity.

Koboko District Local Government vs Okujjo Swali High Court Miscellaneous

Application No. 001 of 2016L Jurisdiction was held to mean the authority conferred by
the law upon the court to decide or5 adjudicate any dispute between the parties or pass
judgment or order and that a court cannot adjudicate a matter in which it has no cause.

See also: Stella Nyanzi v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 79 of 2019) [2020] UGHCCRD 1
(20 February 2020)

Uganda vs Kassiano Wadri and 31 others Criminal Revision No. 0002 of 201

20
Held: Jurisdiction is everything, without it, a court has no power to make one more
step. Where a court has no jurisdiction there would be no basis for continuation of
proceedings...

Criminal jurisdiction of magistrate Courts is provided for under Part XV of the MCA.

- Chief Magistrate – see section 161(1)(a), 162(1)(a)

- Magistrate Grade One – see section 161(1)(b), 162(1)(b)
- Magistrate Grade 2 – see section 161(1)(c), 162(1)(c)
- Section 164 MCA – where the sentence to be imposed is beyond the jurisdiction
of the Court presided over by Grades one and two Courts,
- Power to transfer case to superior Court – see section 167, MCA

Court must also have territorial jurisdiction. See the Magistrates Courts (Magisterial
Areas) Instrument.

21. Termination of proceedings

According to Article 120(3) (d), Constitution of Uganda, one of the functions of the DPP
is to discontinue at any stage before judgment is delivered, any criminal proceedings to
which this article relates, instituted by himself or herself or any other person or authority;
except that the Director of Public Prosecutions shall not discontinue any proceedings
commenced by another person or authority except with the consent of the court.

Discontinuation of criminal proceedings can only be done by the DPP in person. See
Article 120(4)(b).

Circumstances under which criminal proceedings may be terminated include:

- Where there is no sufficient evidence to sustain the charges – e,g, as a result of

death of key witnesses.
- There the accused has been granted Amnesty. See Uganda v Omusinga
Mumbere and Ors
- Public Interest
- Interests of administration of justice
- Prevention of abuse of legal process – see Article 120(5)

Court can also order termination of criminal proceedings where the rights of the
accused have been violated to an extent that it is impossible to accord him a fair trial.

21
TERM TWO
1.6 MODULE TWO: TRIAL PROCEEDINGS IN THE HIGH COURT
1.6.1 Introduction
The trial process in the High Court has some unique aspects such as preliminary
hearing and participation of assessors during the trial. The skills for the above
procedures will be imparted to students through demonstrations. Students will be taken
through the entire process from arraignment to sentencing.

1.6.2 Aims of the Module

The aim of this module is to:
1. Develop ability to advise on prosecution of criminal matters in the High Court;
2. Develop ability to prosecute criminal matters in the High Court;
3. Develop ability to recognise ethical issues during prosecution of criminal matters in
the High Court;

1.6.3 Learning Outcomes

By the end of this module, students will be able to;
1. Examine various legal principles relating to trial proceedings in High Court;
2. Present a bail application in the High Court;
3. Prosecute criminal matters in the High Court;
4. Recognise and deal with ethical issues relating to prosecution of criminal matters in
the High Court.

1.6.4 Outline of Content

1. Indictments
Criminal Trials in the High Court are usually commenced by an indictment. An
indictment is a formal charge or accusation of a serious offense.

An indictment must be accompanied by a summary of the case.

A "Summary of the Case" is simply a summation of the case, the details of which are
then produced by way of evidence. – See Uganda v Okumu and 5 Ors (Criminal
Revision 3 of 2018) [2018] UGHCCRD 206 (13 December 2018)

Trial on Indictments Act, Sections 22 – 27, 50, 51

2. Committal Proceedings
Committal proceedings are provided for in section 168 of the Magistrates Courts Act.
These proceedings are a consequence of a fact that a magistrate does not have the
jurisdiction to try a case before him. The accused person thus appears before him for

22
mention but does not take plea. The following should be noted in committal
proceedings:

- A person should be charged with an offence in the Magistrate’s court, triable by

the High Court.
- The DPP or the State Attorney files an indictment with a summary of the case in
the Magistrates Court.
- The Magistrate is given a copy of the Indictment and summary of the case.
- The Magistrate reads out the indictment and summary of the case and explain to
the accused the nature of the accusation against him in the language he or she
understands.
- The magistrate then commits the accused for trial to the High Court and
transmits copies of the indictment and summary of the case to the registrar of the
High Court.
- The accused person is then remanded by the magistrate pending his or her trial.
- It must be noted that the effect of the committal is that if the accused was on bail,

Read:
Trial on Indictments Act, Sections 1, 66
Magistrates Court Act, Section 168
Uganda Criminal Justice Bench Book pg 159

Section 1 of the Trial on Indictments Act Cap 23 is to the effect that the High Court
shall have jurisdiction to try any offence under any written law and may pass any
sentence authorized by law; except that no criminal case shall be brought under the
cognizance of the High Court for trial unless the accused person has been
committed for trial to the High Court in accordance with the Magistrates Courts Act.

Committal to High Court is a necessary step to trial of this case. Without committal the
case would never be tried. – see Shabahuria Matia v Uganda (MSK-00-CR 5 of 1999)
[1999] UGHC 1 (30 June 1999).

A period of three years without committal to the High Court for trial is expectionally long
so as to raise an inquiry as to whether the proceedings against the accused are not
oppressive or otherwise in breach of his right to a fair and speedy trial. See,
Shabahuria Matia v Uganda (MSK-00-CR 5 of 1999) [1999] UGHC 1 (30 June 1999).

Lapse of bail upon committal: Hon. Sam Kutesa and ors v AG Constitutional reference
No. 54 of 2011. The decision of the Constitutional Court in Hon. Sam Kutesa & others
vs AG & Uganda where it was held that bail does not automatically lapse upon
committal. It would follow that an accused person whose Constitutional right to bail has

23
accrued under the provisions of Article 23(6)(c) of the Constitution shall not
automatically cease upon Committal to the High Court (Petition No. 46 of 2011 and
Constitutional Reference No. 54 of 2011).

Bail should be maintained by the court committing an accused person except where that
court, for sufficient reason, considers that bail should be cancelled. See Opolot Sam
and ors v Uganda, MA No. 27 of 2022 (March 2023)

Cases
- Opio Abunya v Uganda (HCT-04-CR-CM 33 of 2012) [2013] UGHCCRD 54 (2
October 2013)
- Yali v Uganda (Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 4 of 2017) [2017]
UGHCCRD 107 (15 June 2017)
- Uganda v Okumu and 5 Ors (Criminal Revision 3 of 2018) [2018] UGHCCRD
206 (13 December 2018)

3. Organizing High Court Criminal Sessions

It is the duty of the Registrar to organize a High Court Criminal session. This cause
listing the cases for trial, issuance of production warrants for the accused in prison,
arrange for interpreters where necessary, and, inter alia, arrange for legal
representation on state brief where necessary.

- Role of the Registrar/Deputy Registrar

- Role of Counsel

4. Preliminary Hearing
The purpose of the preliminary hearings was to screen out those cases where the
prosecution evidence was too weak to justify a trial – Uganda v Okumu and 5 Ors
(Criminal Revision 3 of 2018) [2018] UGHCCRD 206 (13 December 2018)
See also – Soon Yeon kong kim and another v. Attorney General, Constitutional
Reference No. 6 of 2007

5. Pre-trial disclosure
Pre-trial disclosure is intended to safe guard against ambush. Pre-trial disclosure is
promised on Article 28 (1) and (3)(a)(b)(c)(d) of the constitution which guarantee the
right to fair hearing which contains in it the right to a pre-trial disclosure of material
statements and exhibits.

24
Soon Yeon Kong Kim Vs A.G Const Ref No. 6 / 2007; Held: In summary, Article 28(1)
(3)(a)(c)(d) and (g) of the Constitution of Uganda in their plain, natural and practical
meaning, prima facie entitle an accused person in Court to disclosure of:-
-Copies of statements made to Police by the would be witnesses for the
prosecution.
-Copies of documentary exhibits, which the prosecution is to produce at the
trial.
-The disclosure is subject to limitations to be established through evidence by
the prosecution.
EDWARD DDUMBA MUWAMU V UGANDA, HCT-00-CR-SC-169 OF 2012, the court
held that non-disclosure is not fatal the proceedings. Whenever it’s brought to the
attention of court during the trial that there was no disclosure, court can adjourn the
matter and order for disclosure.

Duty of defence counsel:

Mwanga Francis & 2 ors v AG 88/1999 (Duty of Defence Council)

Texts:
- The Uganda Criminal Justice Bench Book Page128
- The Constitution of Uganda, Article 28, 42

6. Assessors
A criminal trial in the High Court cannot be commenced and conducted in the absence
of assessors.

Trial on Indictments Act, Sections 3, 67, 68, 69, 70, 81, 82, Schedule (Assessors Rules)
The Uganda Justice Criminal Bench Book Page 130

Cases
1) Geresomu Bahinganwa v Uganda, 1986] HCB 1, Held: Each of the assessors
must state his/her opinion orally and the judge shall record the same.
2) Abdu Komakech Vs Uganda [1992 - 1993] HCB 21, an assessor who did not
attend the whole trial was disqualified.
3) Bwengevs.Uganda(1999)E.A25

25
7. Plea bargain in capital offences;
Plea Bargain is a procedure whereby an accused pleads guilty to end a trial subject to
the consent of the state prosecutor, the victims of the offence in cases where they
participate in the process, and, primarily, with the judge’s oversight on the appropriate
sentence before the agreement is sealed. 1 See Rule 4 of the Judicature (Plea
Bargain) Rules 2016

The Law:
- Constitution of Uganda, Article 28
- The Judicature (Plea Bargain) Rules 2016.
- The Uganda Criminal Justice Bench Book, pg 124
Article 28(1) provides that in the determination of civil rights and obligations or any
criminal charge, a person shall be entitled to a fair, speedy and public hearing before
an independent and impartial court or tribunal established by law. It was in pursuit of
providing fair and speedy trials that plea bargaining was introduced in Uganda.

Inensiko Adams v Uganda, Criminal Appeal No. 004 of 2017 [2018] UGHCRD 101
(24 August 2018) Court held that the main objective of plea bargain is to enable the
accused and the prosecution in consultation with the victim to reach an amicable
agreement on an appropriate punishment, to ;lkacilitate reduction in case backlog and
prison congestion, /*-provide quick relief from the anxiety of criminal prosecution, to
encourage accused persons to own up to their criminal responsibility and to involve the
victim in the adjudication process.

Court can reject a plea bargain if it occasions a miscarriage of justice. See Rules 12
and 13, Plea bargain Rules. See also Aria Angelo v Uganda criminal appeal no. 439
of 2015 (February 2022)
Parties are required to inform the court of negotiations and consult the court on
proposed sentences before the final plea bargain agreement is presented in open court.
See Rule 8.

A plea bargain is made by a well-informed accused who signs it voluntarily. A bargain

when made and endorsed by all the participating parties, is binding on the convict, and
as authority has shown, can only be set aside on justifiable grounds. The rationale is
that the agreement follows a plea of guilty which ordinarily in the absence of exceptional
circumstances, is not appealable– see Birimuye Dennis v Uganda Criminal Appeal
No. 0343 of 2OI7 (March 2023)

1
Nakibuule Gladys Kisekka | Kar-wai Tong (Reviewing editor) (2020) Plea bargaining as a human rights
question, Cogent Social Sciences, 6:1, DOI: 10.1080/23311886.2020.1818935

26
The state, the accused the victim and the court all play an active role in the plea
bargain process.

Cases

- Luwaga Suleman Alias Katongole V Uganda Criminal Appeal No. 858 of 2014)
[2019] UGCA 202 (17 July 2019
- Inensiko Adams v Uganda, Criminal Appeal No. 004 of 2017 [2018] UGHCRD 101 (24
August 2018)
- Wangwe Robert v Uganda, Court of Appeal Criminal Case No. 572 of 2014 – Court is
bound by plea bargain agreement once it has been properly entered.
- Ssempija Brian v Uganda Court of Appeal Criminal case No. 556 of 2014
- Agaba Michael and ors v Uganda Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 139 of
2017
- Birimuye Dennis v Uganda Criminal Appeal No. 0343 of 2OI7 (March 2023)
- Aria Angelo v Uganda criminal appeal no. 439 of 2015 (February 2022)

8. Bail in the High Court

The High Court may at any stage in the proceedings release the accused person on
bail. See Trial on Indictments Act, Section 14(1).

The Law
- Constitution of Uganda, Article 23(6)
- Trial on Indictments Act, Section 14, 15
- Judicature (Criminal Procedure) (Applications) Rules SI 13-8, Rule 2
- The Constitution (Bail Guidelines for Courts Of Judicature) (Practice) Directions,
2022

Text: Benjamin Odoki, A Guide to Criminal Procedure in Uganda (3 rd Edition, Law

Development Centre 2006) at page 91
The Uganda Criminal Justice Bench Book Page 148

- Requirement for proof of exceptional circumstances TIA, 14, 15

Nakiwunge Racheal Muleke versus Uganda, SC Criminal Reference No.12 of
2O2O, Exceptional circumstance were defined to mean;
a) Grave illness certified by a medical officer of the prison or other institution where the
accused is detained as being incapable of medical treatment while the accused is in
custody.
b) A certificate of no objection signed by the Director of Public Prosecutions, or
c) The infancy or age of the accused.

27
Note:
In the Foundation for Human Rights Initiative vs. Attorney General,2 court observed
that exceptional circumstances are no longer a requirement for release on bail; as the
court found S.15 (1) (a) of the TIA to be in contravention of the Constitution.

Cases
1) Uganda (DPP) vs. Col Rtd Dr Kiiza Besigye, Constitutional Reference No. 20 of
2005,
2) Mathew Kanyamunyu and 2 others vs. Uganda HCT0-00-CR-CM-0369-2016
3) Attorney General vs. Tumushabe (2008) E.A. 26
4) Obey & 2 Ors v Uganda (Misc. Application No's. 045, 046, and 047/2015
5) Mawanda Edward Vs Uganda SC Crim App No. 4 of 1999
6) Andrew Adimola V Uganda Misc Cr App No. 9 of 1992, - Age of 50 years
7) Aliobe Joseph & 2 others V Uganda Misc Crim Application Nos. 0015, 0016, and
0017 of 2016
8) Paul Awandal V Uganda HC Crim Application No. 14 of 2016: Bail should not
be used as an opportunity to frustrate the trial. Bail should not be granted
where there is a danger of the accused person interfering with the on-going
investigations or threatening witnesses.

Students will also be required to present/oppose a bail application in a mock trial.

9. Examination of witnesses;
- Article 28(3)(f),(G)
- Section 71 and 72, TIA
- Section 163, Evidence Act

a. Recording a Charge and Caution Statement

- Evidence Act, Section 23
- The Evidence (Statements to Police Officers) Rules Statutory Instrument 6—1
- Benjamin Odoki in “A Guide to Criminal Procedure In Uganda” 3 rd Edition
Law Development Centre 2006.

Cases
- Ngumba and Another v R (1975) EA 223 – If the statement is made to any other
person, it is inadmissible unless the magistrate or the police officer of specified
rank is present.
- Festo Androa Asenua v Uganda SC cr Ap No 1 of 1998

b. Trial Within A Trial

2
Constitutional Petition 20/2006.

28
The purpose of a trial within a trial is for the purpose of ascertaining the voluntariness of
the accused’s confession in the charge and caution. The practice is to weigh the
evidence in the charge and caution statement with the oral evidence or other evidence
before court.

Masiki Sosan and Anor v Uganda CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 7 OF 2002 (2004). Held:
The idea of a trial within a trial is to ensure that damaging material does not find itself on
record unless its acceptability has first been tested. Prejudicial material is difficult to
erase from the mind of court and assessors and hence the need not to hear it unless it
is opportune to do so.

Read
- Evidence Act, Section 23, 25
- The Evidence (Statements to Police Officers) Rules Statutory Instrument 6—1
- Benjamin Odoki in “A Guide to Criminal Procedure In Uganda” 3 rd Edition
Law Development Centre 2006.

Cases
Kinyorisio Kiridutu Versus R(1956) EACA 48 – Procedure of Conducting a Trial
within a Trial

Masiki Sosan and Anor v Uganda CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 7 OF 2002 (2004)
The confession statement was admitted in evidence without holding a trial within a trial
to determine its admissibility. The decision was quashed on appeal.

c. Identification Parade
An identification parade is where a group of persons including one suspected of having
committed a crime are assembled for the purpose of discovering whether a witness can
really identify the suspect.

Cases
1) R v. Mwango s/o Manaa [1936] 3 EACA 29 – Procedure for Conducting an
Identification Parade
2) Ssentale v. Uganda [1968] EA 365
3) Stephen Mugume v. Uganda, Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 1995(SC).
4) Abdalla Nabulere and 2 Ors vs Uganda CA No. 9 of 1978.

After conducting an identification parade, the Officer conducting the parade completes
PF69

d. Voire-Dire

29
A voire dire is the inquiry that the magistrate or Judge carries to investigate and make
definite findings on the capacity of the child to give sworn or unsworn evidence.

- Evidence Act Section 101

- Trial on Indictments Act, Section 40(3)

Cases
1. Kibagenyi V R [1959] EA 152 – Held: A child of tender age has been defined
to be one whose apparent age of is below 14 years
2. Patrick Akol v Uganda Criminal Appeal NO. 23/92
3. Kato Sula v Uganda Criminal Appeal NO. 25/2000

In a mock trial, students will be required to conduct a voire dire

e. Expert / Forensic Evidence

Forensic evidence can be defined as criminal evidence acquired through scientific
methods, including ballistics, blood tests, and DNA tests to be used in court.
Alternatively, forensic evidence can be holistically defined as the application of science
within legal proceedings.

Evidence of experts is provided for in Section 43 of the Evidence Act cap 6 which is
to the effect that if court is to form an opinion on appoint of science, opinions of such
persons with expertise are relevant.

Uganda v Karungi Abubakar and Anor. HCT-00-CR-SC-0171-2019. Forensic science

or application of scientific methods and techniques to investigate crime when properly
done is one of the best evidence of establishing facts.

ODINDO V. R (1969) E.A. 12 that one needs to have an educational background before
giving an authoritative opinion on the matter before court;

R V. SILVER LOAKE (1894) 2 QB court held that where one is knowledgeable in a

particular field as a result of experience, court can rely on his experience to form an
opinion.

Evidence Act, Sections 43 – 49.

The Criminal Justice Bench Book, Page 187.

f. Electronic Evidence
Electronic evidence is data (comprising the output of analogue devices or data in digital
form) that is manipulated, stored or communicated by any manufactured device,
computer or computer system or transmitted over a communication system, that has the

30
potential to make the factual account of either party more probable or less probable
than it would be without the evidence.

Justice Mutonyi in the case of Amongin Jane Francis Okili Vesus Lucy Akello and
The Electoral Commission, HCT-02-cv.0001 – 2014, defined electronic evidence as is
any probative information stored or transmitted in digital form that a party at a trial or
proceeding may use. It is used to prove a particular proposition or to persuade court of
the truth of an allegation.

Legislation
- The Computer Misuse Act, No. 2 of 2011;
- The Electronic Signatures Act, No. 7 of 2011;
- The Electronic Transactions Act, No. 8 of 2011;
- The Evidence Act, Cap 6.
- The Constitution (Integration of ICT into the Adjudication process for courts of
Judicature) (Practice Directions), 2019

Cases
- Uganda vs Ssebuwufu Mohammed & 7 others, Criminal Session Case No.
0493 of 2015 where a witness exhibited the phones of four of the accused
persons as well as the telephone print outs which showed the location of the
accused persons as having been within the around the area of the crime scene
at the material time, the court went on to hold that such evidence was ‘capable of
proving a proposition with the accuracy of mathematics.

- Fred Muwema vs Facebook Ireland Limited [2016 No. 4637 P] where the
court held that the details collected by Facebook relating to the identities and
location of person (s) operating a Facebook page under the name ‘Tom Voltaire
Okwalinga” could be secured from Facebook to prove the residency of the device
used in making an alleged offensive posting and the identity of the person doing
so when legally sought though in this particular instance the said court declined
to issue the order for the release the information by Facebook based on its
obtaining evidence that there was the possibility of misuse of such information.

- Stella Nyanzi v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 79 of 2019) [2020] UGHCCRD 1 (20

February 2020)

- Godi Akbar vs Uganda Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2011, the Court of Appeal
approved the use of cellular triangulation and the evidence of telephony call data
print-outs to establish that the accused person was in possession and control of

31
 his mobile phone at the material time and place when the offence was
committed.

- Uganda v. Hussein Hassan Agade & 12 Others HCCS No 1 of 2010

- Uganda v. Kato Kajubi Cr App No 39 of 2010

10. Prima facie case/Ruling;

At the close of the prosecution case, parties are supposed to make submissions on
Prima Facie Case / No Case to Answer, and court will make a ruling.
- Constitution of Uganda, Article 28 (3)
- Trial on Indictments Act, Section 73,
- The Uganda Criminal Justice bench Book, page 143

Cases
1) Ramanlal Bhatt Vs R [1957] EA 332
2) F.X Kayemba Vs Uganda [1983] HCB 30
3) Uganda Vs Alfred Ateu [1974] HCB
4) Uganda V Swaibu Ssebale [1998] HCB 36
5) Uganda v Kato Kajubi HCT-O6-CRSCO16/2OO9

Students will also be required to make submissions on No case to answer, for both
prosecution and defense.

11. Defence hearing;

Section 73(2) Where court makes a finding that the prosecution has established a prima
facie case against the accused, the accused will be required to make his defence.
See also section 74, TIA.

Under section 74, the accused is allowed to call witnesses, if any.

12. Summing up to Assessors;

- TIA, Section 82.
- The Uganda Criminal Justice bench Book, page 137
According to Section 82(1) TIA, when the case on both sides is closed, the judge shall
sum up the law and the evidence in the case to the assessors and shall require each of
the assessors to state his or her opinion orally and shall record each such opinion.

13. Judgment;
A judgment is a reasoned pronouncement by a judicial officer on a disputed legal or
factual question, which has been presented before him or her by the parties.
32
 - TIA, Section 85, 86
- See The Uganda Criminal Justice bench Book, page 225
- Benjamin Odoki, A guide to Criminal Procedure in Uganda, page 154
An accused person is entitled to a copy of the judgment. See Article 28

14. Allocutus, Mitigation

- The Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature)
(Practice)Directions, 2013
- No sentence ought to be passed without inquiring from the accused if he/she has
anything to say. – see Uganda v katende Kasmoni, HC Rev. Cause No. 14 of
1999

15. Sentencing
- Article 28(8)
- The Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature)
(Practice)Directions, 2013
- The Uganda Criminal Justice bench Book, page 231

- Aharikundira v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. of 2015) [2018] UGSC 49 (3

December 2018) It was held:
Sentencing is the end tail of a Criminal Justice system. It is important that at the end of
the trial an appropriate sentence is passed by the trial court. Sentencing is the heart and
soul of Article 126 of Constitution. It is one of the various ways Courts of law are
accountable to the people of Uganda on whose behalf they exercise Judicial Power
under Article 126 of the Constitution. The people of Uganda expect Courts of law to
pass sentences which are in conformity with law and must bear in mind the values,
norms and aspirations of the people.

- Uganda v Kiwalabye (Criminal Case 20 of 2013) [2016] UGHCCRD 79 (2

August 2016) It was held:
The determination of appropriate punishment after the conviction of an offender is often
a question of great difficulty and always requires careful consideration. The law
prescribes the nature and the limit of the punishment permissible for an offence, but the
Court has to determine in each case a sentence suited to the offence and the offender.
The maximum punishment prescribed by the law for any offence is intended for the
gravest of its kind and it is rarely necessary in practice to go up to the maximum. I do
not consider this to be a case that involves exceptional depravity and I for that reason
fully appreciate the reason why the plea bargain agreement would discount the death
penalty

33
Ninsiima v. Uganda Crim. Appeal No. 180 of 2010. The Court of appeal opined that
the sentencing guidelines have to be applied taking into account past precedents of
Court, decisions where the facts have a resemblance to the case under trial.

Cases
- Uganda v Atwine (Criminal Sessions Case 155 of 2015) [2018] UGHCCRD 42 (6
February 2018)
- Kyalimpa Edward vs. Uganda; Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No.10 of 1995
- Uwihayimana Moly v Uganda, Crim Appeal No. 103 of 2009 – In determining an
appropriate sentence, the trial court should consider aggravating factors
and also take into account the mitigating factors.
- Ninsiima v. Uganda Crim. Appeal No. 180 of 2010.
- Uganda v Kiwalabye (Criminal Case 20 of 2013) [2016] UGHCCRD 79 (2 August
2016)
- Aharikundira v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. of 2015) [2018] UGSC 49 (3
December 2018)

TERM THREE
5.7 MODULE THREE: POST TRIAL PROCEEDINGS
5.7.1 Introduction
In this module, the students will be introduced to post trial remedies available to any
aggrieved party in the criminal justice system. Such remedies include appeals, revision
and interlocutory remedies like bail pending appeal and extension of time. Students will
be exposed to the various procedures of attaining the most appropriate remedy in the
circumstances of each case.
Aims of the module
The aims of this module are to;
1. Develop the ability to advise on post-trial remedies;
2. Develop the ability to prosecute the post-trial process;
3. Develop ability to recognize ethical issues relating to post-trial proceedings.

5.7.2 Learning outcomes

By the end of this module students will be able to:
1. Peruse a record of proceedings
2. Formulate grounds of appeal/revision;
3. Draft necessary documents in prosecuting appeals/revision;
4. Demonstrate an application for bail pending appeal/revision;
5. Illustrate the preparation and presentation of facts on appeal/revision;

34
6. Appreciate the conduct of an appeal
7. Recognise and deal with ethical issues relating to conducting of appeals/revision.

5.7.3 Outline of Content

A. REVISION
Revision is a judicial process whereby the high court calls for, examines and corrects
the mistakes of the lower court which appear on the face of the record in a criminal trial.
– Odoki, 207
Powers of revision are solely vested in the High Court the purpose of which is to enable
it to effectively supervise the subordinate courts with the object of correcting their errors
or wrongs. – Ssekaana, 18.1

Section 50(5) CPCA. Any person aggrieved by any finding, sentence or order made or
imposed by a magistrate’s court may petition the High Court to exercise its powers of
revision under this section; but no such petition shall be entertained where the petitioner
could have appealed against the finding, sentence or order and has not appealed.
Texts
1. Odoki B.J, A Guide to Criminal Procedure in Uganda 3rd edition, 2006.
2. The Uganda Criminal Justice Bench Book, Pg, 260
3. Ssekana Musa – Criminal procedure in Uganda, chapter 18

Legislation:

1. The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995; Articles 28,138, 139.

2. The Judicature Act, Cap 13; Ss 14,16, 17
3. The Criminal Procedure Code Act, Cap 116; Ss 48, 50, 51 52, 53.
4. The Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice)
Directions, 2013

Cases:
1. Kidega Richard v Uganda HC Cr Revision No.1 of 2020
2. Ahmed Kawoza Kangu v Uganda SCC Appln No. 4 of 2007
3. Hassan Bassajabalaba v Kakande Bernard HC Cr Revn 002 of 2006
4. Uganda v Adongpiny, criminal revision application no. 001 of 2022 (February
2023) – Revision entails examination by the High Court, of the Record of
Proceedings of the Magistrates Courts for the purpose of the High Court

35
 satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality, and regularity of proceedings
of the Magistrate Court.
5. Barasa Bernard and Anor v Uganda, Criminal Revision No. 1 of 2017 – Only a
final order can be subject of revision.
- Grounds for Revision – see Uganda v Adongpiny, criminal revision application
no. 001 of 2022 (February 2023)
o Incorrectness / error on the face of the record
o Illegality
o Irregularity
- Mode of Application – Notice of Motion & Affidavit
- Bail Pending Revision
- Revisionary Orders

B. APPEALS

Legislation:

1. The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995; Articles 28,138, 139.

2. The Penal Code Act, Cap 120;
3. The Judicature Act, Cap 13; Ss 10-12 and 41
4. The Trial on Indictments Act, Cap.23 S.106,107.
5. The Criminal Procedure Code Act, Cap 116; Ss 28, 40, 43, 44.
6. The Evidence Act, Cap 6; Part III – Part IV.
7. The Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions, SI 13-10.
8. The Constitution(Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of
Judicature) (Practice) Directions, 2013

Cases:
1. Attorney General v Shah (1971)EA 50
2. Alinyo & Anor v R (1974) EA 544
3. Charles Harry Twagira vs Uganda SCC App No.3 of 2003
4. Uganda v Hon. Ssemwogere and 2 Other[1985]HCB 4
5. Uganda vs George Wilson Simbwa, SCCA No.37 of 1995
6. Kifamunte Henry vs Ug SCCA No. 10 of 1997
7. Festo Androa Asenua & Anor Uganda SCCA No.1 of 1998
8. Jackson Kamya Wavamunno vs Uganda, SCCA No. 16 of 2000
9. Wamutabanewe Jamiru vs Ug SCCA 74 of 2017

36
 10. Tukamuhebwa & Anor vs Uganda SCCA 059 of 2016
11. Rwabuganda Moses Vs Ug SCCA 25 of 2014
12. Wofeda Stephen vs Uganda CACA 169 of 2003
13. Bukenya Joseph vs Uganda SCCA 17 of 2010
14. Ntambala Fred vs Uganda S.C. Cr. App. No.34 of 2015
15. Arvind Patel vs Uganda Criminal Appl No. 1 of 2003
16. Ocepa Geoffrey vs Uganda SCC Misc App No.7 of 2020
17. David Chandi Jamwa vs Uganda SC Misc App No. 9 of 2018
18. Magombe Joshua vs Uganda SC Misc Appl No. 11 of 2019
19. Tinkamarirwe vs Uganda SCCA No. 27/1999.
20. Abdu Ngobi vs Uganda SCCA No. 10/1991

3.7.4 Content Outline

1. The nature of a criminal appeal.
A.G. vs. Silem; 33 L.J. Ex. 209 Defined appeal as the right of entering a
superior court and invoking its aid and interpretation to redress the error of the
court below.

Pannama vs. Arumogam [1905] A.C. 390 An appeal is proceeding in which

the question is whether the order of the court from which the appeal is brought
was right on the material which that court had before it.

2. The incidence of appeal:

(i) Appeals are a creature of statute (both the right and the jurisdiction to
hear them).
- Alinyo & Anor vs. R. [1974] E.A. 544
- Uganda vs. Hon. Ssemwogerere and 2 others [1985] H.C.B. 4
There is no automatic right of appeal neither is there inherent appellate
jurisdiction. The right to appeal is a creature of statute. No party has a
right of appeal unless it is clearly provided for by statute.

(ii) Appeals lie from final decisions. (Interlocutory orders are not
appealable).

- Uganda vs. Inyansio Lule [1973] H.C.B. 93.

- Hassan Yusufu vs. Uganda [1974] H.C.B. 223
There is no right of appeal from an interlocutory ruling of a Chief
Magistrate made before the completion of a case.

37
 - Charles Harry Twagira vs. Uganda; S.C. Cr. App. No. 3 of 2003
(unreported).
There is no right of appeal in respect of discretionary interlocutory orders
or rulings of court in criminal matters. In criminal matters, appeals lie from
judgments and “judgment” means a final decision of a court but not a
discretionary order or ruling in an interlocutory matter.

Jetwa & Anor, vs. R. [1969] E.A. 459 - R vs. Wachira [1975] E.A. 262.
- R. vs. Kidasa [1973] E.A. 368
- Merah vs. Uganda [1963] E.A. 647
An appeal should only be made at the end of the trial and any complaint
about wrong decisions on interlocutory matters can be raised as grounds
of the appeal.

(iii) Appeals from orders.

(some orders made by magistrates’ courts are appealable) - S.127 M.C.A – An
acquittal as a result of a finding of no case to answer.
- Mohamed Taki vs. R. Case No. 107 M.B. No. 7/6
- The state has a right of appeal against a finding of no case to answer.
- S.22 (5) M.C.A - An order for giving security for good behaviour.
- S.25 (5) M.C.A - An order of forfeiture of bond in relation thereto.
- S.84 M.C.A - Orders of forfeiture of recognizance made under S.83.
- S.195 (4) M.C.A - An order for award of costs of over 10,000/=
- S.197 (3) M.C.A - An order for compensation for material loss or
personal injury.
- S. 201(5) M.C.A - Orders relating to return of stolen property.

(iv) Right of appeal expressly exclude or limited

- S.143 (8) M.C.A – Findings and sentences in petty cases.
- S.195 (4) M.C.A – Award of refusal of costs. See Uganda vs. Rwakilago
[1971]
H.C.B. 105
- S. 204 (4) M.C.A – Sentence not exceeding one month or fine not
exceeding 100/=
- S.204 (3) M.C.A – Upon a plea of guilty (Appeal limited to
legality/severity of Sentence).
- Kasoro Joseph vs. Uganda [1973] H.C.B. 36

(v) Appeals as of right and “with leave”.

- Appeal may be made as of right where;

38
 ▪ There is statutory provision for it;
▪ Made within the prescribed time.
- Leave” will be required where; - time for lodgment has elapsed in which
case extension of time must be sought first. See Ss. 28 and 31 of the
C.P.C.A.
- Grounds for extension of time within which to lodge an appeal.
- Uganda vs. Leonard Kaya Okumu [1972] H.C.B. 110.

3. Who may exercise the right of appeal from the decision of a magistrate?
- S.204 (1) (a) and (b) – A convict.
- S.204 (5) M.C.A. – The Director of Public Prosecutions.
- With sanction of the D.P.P. (by other person e.g. organs with powers of
prosecution or in the case of a private prosecution).
- S.14 (9) I.G.G. Act; Act 5/2002 – The I.G.G. in cases prosecuted by him/her.

4. The Effect of a criminal appeal.

- S.73 (2) M.C.A - Property seized may be detained pending the appeal.
- S.94 (2) M.C.A - Exhibits may be retained until disposal of the appeal.
- 199 (2) M.C.A - Sentence of a fine is suspended until disposal of appeal.
- 201(4) M.C.A - Stolen property may not be restored until disposal of appeal.
- S.201 (6) M.C.A - Orders for restitution of certain property may be suspended.

5. The scope of a first appeal from a magistrate’s court.

- S.204 (2) M.C.A for an appeal by a convict;
- Matters of law - Matters involving the interpretation and application of legal texts
and principles.
- Matters of fact- Matters involving specific past events about which there is doubt
whose resolution has little or no bearing on future case.
S.204 (5) M.C.A. For an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions

6. Identification of grounds of appeal.

(a) Common sources of grounds of appeal.

- Misdirection and non-direction on matters of law and/or of fact.

- Incorrect interpretation of the law.
- Incorrect application of principles of the law to the facts of the case.
- Overlooking some materials facts.
- Giving undue consideration to certain facts
- Findings not supported by the available evidence.

39
 - Decisions per in currium.
- Procedural errors.
- Effect of failure to record a plea.
- Acting without or in excess of jurisdiction.
- Proceeding on a fatally defective charge sheet.
- Omitting an essential step in the trial process.
- Manifest bias in the trial process.
- Improper exercise of discretion in interlocutory matters.
- Improper exercise of discretion when imposing sentence.
- Imposing an illegal sentence
- Ineffective legal representation

7. Instituting appeals from decisions of Magistrates grade I and Chief Magistrates

‘Courts to the High Court.
i. S.204 (1)(a) M.C.A – Right of appeal
ii. S.204 (2) M.C.A – Scope of the Appeal. (Matters of law and of fact)
iii. S. 28 C.P.C.A – time (as of right. time has not elapsed).
iv. (N.B. Corresponding right of appeal to the D.P.P; S.204(5)(a)
v. The notice of appeal; S.28 (1) C.P.C.A.
vi. Record of appeal; Art. 28(6) Const.
(i) The right of appeal
- By a convict; S.204 (6) M.C.A. matter of law not including severity of
sentence.
- Bail; S.47 C.P.C.A. but c.f. s.45(7)
- May apply for revision; S.50 C.P.C.A.; then appeal from revision;
S.45 (7) but with no right to bail, S.40 (7) C.P.C.A

- By the D.P.P; S. 204 (7) M.C.A

(ii) The scope of the appeal

- For the D.P.P S.204 (7) M.C.A. that the decision is erroneous in law;

S.204 (7) M.C.A

- Place of appeal
- The relevant circuit; Arts. 138(2) & 141 Const. S. 19 & 20 Jud. Act

8. Second appeal to Court of Appeal. (Original trial by G.I or C.M.)

40
 - The right of appeal; Art. 134(2) Const. – right of appeal from decisions of
magistrates. - By a convict; S.45 C.P.C.A
- By the D.P.P S.45 C.P.C.A
- Right to bail pending second appeal; S.47 C.P.C.A. but cf. S. 45(7) C.P.C.A

- The scope of the appeal.

- For a convict; a matter of law, not including severity of sentence; S.45 (1)
C.P.C.A

- For the D.P.P a matter of law, not including severity of sentence; S.45 (1)
C.P.C.A

9. Bail pending appeal.

- S.205 M.C.A.
- S. 40 C.P.C.A.; first made to the magistrate’s court, S.40 (2)
Considerations;

- Joseph Watton vs. R; (1979)68 Cr. App. R 293

- Masrani vs. R; [1960] E.A. 320
The only ground for bail pending appeal is the existence of special
circumstances; i.e. where it appears prima facie, that the appeal is likely to be
successful or where there is a risk that the sentence will be served by the time
the appeal is heard.

- Kilanda and 2 others vs. Uganda [1984] H.C.B. 18

The principles that govern the granting of bail pending appeal include; the
character and antecedents of the applicant, the possibility of substantial delay in
hearing the appeal, whether or not the offence for which the applicant was
convicted involves personal violence, whether the appeal is not frivolous and has
reasonable possibility of success.

- Arvind Patel vs. Uganda; C.A. Cr. Appn. No. 9 of 2001 (unreported).
The guidelines for granting bail pending appeal are now less stringent than
previously where bail would only be granted in exceptional circumstances. One
of the strongest factors to be taken into account is the applicant’s behaviour
during the course of trial (and appeal to the High Court).

Kiwanuka Kunsa Stephen v Uganda, Crim. Misc. App No. 38 of 2021 (July 2022)
Held:
It is trite that the power to grant bail pending appeal just like the power to grant bail
pending trial is at the discretion of court which discretion has to be exercised judiciously.

41
At this stage, the applicant though a convict still enjoys the presumption of innocence as
provided by article 28(31 of the Constitution. The presumption of innocence continues
as long as someone decides to exercise the right of appeal. The presumption does not
stop at the trial level. Under the Constitution, the presumption of innocence acts as a rail
guard to the protection of personal liberty and the right to a fair hearing.

The court also laid more emphasis on the grounds laid in Arvid v Patel.

Documents required:

1. Notice of Motion
2. Affidavit in Support of Notice of Motion

10. Duty of Appellate Court

Uganda vs. George William Ssimbwa S.C.CrNo.37 of 1995 To give evidence fresh
exhaustive scrutiny with due regard to the fact that it never actually saw or heard the
witnesses personally:

Kifamunte Henry Vs Uganda SCCr.App.No.10of1997 Must carefully weigh the

judgment of the trial judge albeit make its own decision:

Duty of Second Appellate Court

Kifamunte Henry Vs Uganda SCCr.App.No.10of1997 it was held that the duty of the
second appellate court is to determine if the first appellate court re-evaluated the
evidence on record and properly considered the judgment of the trial judge
Bogere Moses V Uganda CRIMINAL APPEALNO.1OF1997.

42