Birete Sarah v Uganda [2017] UGSC 27 (15 June 2017)

_ ,

, ( . ...' I

, "

~ __ Corruption 'Court' and was sentenced to 10 years

imprisonment on each of the two counts of Abuse of office
CIS (1) and embezzlement CIS 14 (a) (iii) of the Anti
Corruption Act 2009. She was also ordered to refund the
embezzled USD 70,000.

10

She appealed to the Court of Appeal which allowed her
appeal against conviction and sentence on the offence of
Abuse of office.

15 Her conviction and sentence on the second count of

embezzlement was upheld, hence her appeal and this
application to this court. She deponed further that she
applied to be supplied with a copy of proceedings which
has not been availed by the Court of Appeal.

20

She is a single mother of two infant sons and guardian of
an orphaned child. The infant children are 8-10 years
while the dependent girl child is 4 years.

25 Submission by Counsel/or the applicant:

Her learned Counsel Mr. Kanduho read and highlighted
paragraphs 2,3,4,6 and 7 of the applicant's affidavit In
support relating to the character of the applicant.

" ,

',',I ' j I I'

':5 ';. That during the trial at the High Court and on appeal to

the Court of Appeal, she was released on bail and she
abided by all the bail terms which were set by the said two
Courts.

10 Counsel submitted that, In the courts below, she
deposited a certificate of title on which her residential
house is situated and that if the court was inclined to ask
for another title, her cousin sister who is an Ag. Assistant
DPP and Potential Surety was ready to give her Powers of

15 Attorney to deposit her title.

Learned counsel Kanduho further submitted that the
appeal was not frivolous and had a reasonable chance of
success. However, Counsel expressed fear that there was

20 a high possibility of delay in hearing the appeal because
since the applicant applied for proceedings they have not
been availed by the Court of Appeal.

He contended that in the likely event of the appeal being

25 allowed after delay, the applicant would have to her
detriment served a substantial part of her sentence.

Lastly Counsel pointed out that the offence for which the
applicant was convicted did not involve personal violence.

He presented 4 sureties namely:

1 Major Okwiri Lwabwoni 48 years former MP in the 6th
Parliament. Retired army officer resident of Muyenga B
division. His particulars are on the file. He is a colleague of

10 the applicant at work "Center for Constitutional
Governance" .

2 Mr. Beyanga Joseph resident of Nsansa LCI Kira
Municipality Wakiso. He works with Monitor publications,
15 he is a brother to the applicant and his particulars are on
the court file.

3 Nduhukire Naume a resident of Katooke BV, she is the

3. '

I ( •• ••

, .: I " \,

, I ~ , I

Submission 'in' reply by counse1 for the respondent:

Marion Achio SSA Counsel for the respondent opposed the
application and relied on the affidavit of Bisamunyu David
a Senior State Attorney in the Directorate of Public
Prosecutions.

10

She submitted that the application had been bought
under a wrong law, namely article 23 (b) (a). This article
does not provide for bail pending appeal.

15 She submitted further that the applicant's appeal being a
second and final appeal, section 2 of Judicature Act
provides that the appeal can only be based on a point of
law.

20 The Learned Senior State Attorney wondered why no
proposed memorandum of appeal was attached to guide
Court on what ground the appeal is based.

In her view therefore, the appeal has no chance of

success.

25

She argued that contents of paragraph 4 of the affidavit
rejoinder G-d are not matter of law. They are issues of
evaluation of evidence. According to her, improper
evaluation of evidence is not a point of law.

" • I .tJ

With regard to delay, she submitted that, there was no
evidence of likely delay because the court was well staffed
with Justices.

10 While relying on the authority of Arvind Patel Vs Uganda
Misc Application No. 2003 filed by counsel for the
applicant, she distinguished it from the one before this
court on the ground that there was substantive delay in
Arvind Patel which is not the case in the applicant case.

15

The learned Attorney asked the court to ignore the
submission of counsel for the applicant that she abided by
the bail conditions set by the lower courts as a ground
that the applicant should be trusted against the

20 absconding.

That circumstances have changed, she was then during at
the trial innocent, but now she is a convict and her
conviction on the charge of embezzlement was upheld by

25 the Court of Appeal.

Counsel Achio referred to the respondent's affidavit
paragraph 11 and contended that even if embezzlement is

-

, ,

r '" f- f ~',

I " .' r • " J' • I

: '5· :' not of violent in nature, financial crimes are peculiar with

- -

far reaching implication.

She prayed to court to dismiss the application. But in the
event that court is inclined to grant the application,

10 stringent terms should be imposed like depositing a land
title in the applicant's names with express authority to
dispose of the property in the event of jumping bail and in
addition deposit cash of 70,000 USD.

15 Submission in rejoinder by Counsel for the applicant:

In rejoinder counsel for the applicant conceded that article
23 (b) (a) of the Constitution was quoted in Motion in error
but the court is called to exercise substantial justice.
Whether the proposed appeal discloses a point of law,

20 counsel contended that the question as to what the
applicant did amounts to embezzlement is a point of law
to be decided by this court.

Counsel referred court to paragraph 4 (b) affidavits of the

25 applicant in rejoinder that the money in question was
used by the Permanent Secretary and not the applicant
which is a question of law as to whether that was
embezzlement.

- ., '

1 ., .'

irrelevant. Un 'seriousness and profession negligence of

this nature especially when it is portrayed by senior
counsel in the Highest Court of the land is unacceptable
and should not be repeated.

10 The correct law that should have been quoted IS section
40 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

However, professional error of Counsel should not be
visited on the applicant who is yearning for substantive

15 justice. Her application is clear that she wants to be
released on bail pending her appeal on grounds she has
deponed to and the court is alive of the correct provision of
the law under which her application should have been
brought.

20

Errors of counsel notwithstanding, I will invoke the
provision of article 126 of the Constitution which provides:

"That substantive justice shall be administered
without undue regard to technicalities"

25

The principles which guide court in applications of this
nature, were stated in the case Arvind Patel (Supra) which
were considered and reproduced in the 2nd applicant's
authority of Alenyo Marks Vs Uganda (Supra) decided by