THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT GULU
HCT – 02 – CO – MA – 48 – 2008
(Arising from Cr. Case No. AA. 112/2008)
KOMAKECH VINCENT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>APPLICANT
<<<<VERSUS>>>>
UGANDA>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>RESPONDENT
BEFORE HONOURABLE JUSTICE REMMY K. KASULE
RULING
The applicant applies to be released on bail pending his trial for the offence of aggravated defilement c/s. 129 (3) and 4(a) of the Penal Code (Amendment) Act, 2007. He is being charged under Criminal case Number AA. 112 of 2008. He has already been committed to the High Court for trial. The offence is alleged to have been committed on 15.05.08.
The application is brought under Article 23(b) (a) of the Constitution and section 14(1) of the Trial On Indictment Act, Cap.23
Court is satisfied that the applicant has established residence and the sureties he has produced to court are substantial.
It is also within the overall discretionary powers of this court, exercised judicially, to grant bail to the applicant, even in absence of proof of exceptional circumstances as is required of the applicant by section 15(1) of the Trial On Indictment Act, Cap.
23. See Constitutional Court constitutional Reference No. 20 of 2005: Ugandan (DPP) vs Col. (Rtd) Kiiza Besigye.
and also
Constitutional Court Petition No. 20 of 2006 Foundation for Human Rights Initiatives vs Attorney General.
This court has recently held in High Court at Gulu Miscellaneous Application No. 37 of 2008 Bongomin Richard Akal vs Uganda that:-
“The burden is upon the applicant to satisfy court by putting forth before court a set of facts, beyond the ordinary considerations, upon which the court can act, in the exercise of its discretion, to admit the applicant to bail”
The applicant, in the considered view of this court, has not put forward such a set of facts for this court to exercise its discretion and grant him bail. All the facts he has put forward are the ordinary considerations for
bail, not envisaged under section 15(1) of the Trial On Indictment Act.
Court also notes that the alleged victim, is a minor below the age of 14 years, and her mother, Akullu Christine, has filed an affidavit
in opposition to granting the applicant bail, asserting that an attempt was made to take the alleged victim to the applicant’s father’s home with a view to having the victim exonerate the applicant of the alleged offence. A letter dated May 27th, 2008, signed by applicant’s father produced to court by counsel for the applicant, seems to support the assertion of Ms. Akullu Christine, mother of the victim.
Court is therefore not satisfied that that this is a proper case where it should exercise its discretion to grant bail to the applicant.
The application for bail fails. The same stands dismissed.
Remmy K. Kasule
Judge
14th July 2008
