- Flynote
- Criminal law
- Case summary
- Court also stated that it was not informed of the progress of the investigation, charges preferred against the applicant or the amount involved therein and on those grounds denied the grant of bail.
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT MBARARA
HCT-05-CR-MA-36-2002
(From Ruk.00-CR-CO-0031-2002)
MUBONE SAM…………………………………………………………………..APPLICANT
-VS-
UGANDA……………………………………………………………………RESPONDENT
BEFORE: THE HON.JUSICE P.K. MUGAMBA
RULING
I have heard counsel for the applicant in regard to the application. I have also heard from the State Attorney who argues that the sureties presented are not substantial given that the first surety is said to be a businessman of uncertain business, the second surety is a casual labourer while the third surety employs himself in an enterprise of uncertain magnitude. I must add that court was not allowed to learn certain important factors in deciding on bail such as the stage reached in investigations, the charges against the accused person and the amount of money involved in the charge or charge. Let me note also that it is not clear how Dr. Baguma of Nyakibale Hospital comes to swear an affidavit in support, given the clear requirements of Act of 1998 where he would be irrelevant.
In the circumstances I find I can’t grant bail to the applicant.
P.K. Mugamba
Judge
13th August 2002
Mr. Murumba for the State
Mr. Mwene-Kahima for the applicant
Applicant in court
Ms Tushemereirwe court clerk
Court: Ruling read in court.
P.K. Mugamba
Judge