|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| July 2018 |
|
|
Court grants bail in an EOCCA economic-offence matter, finding jurisdiction and imposing substantial cash/ surety conditions.
* Criminal procedure – Bail under EOCCA – Jurisdiction of High Court (Corruption and Economic Crimes Division) to grant bail where alleged economic loss exceeds statutory threshold; * Bailability – Offence of occasioning loss to a specified authority under paragraph 10(1) First Schedule and sections 57(1) and 60 of EOCCA is bailable; * Bail conditions – cash deposit/immovable property, reliable sureties (one government employee), surrender of travel documents, reporting and verification of sureties.
|
30 July 2018 |
|
Applicants charged under EOCCA granted bail with substantial deposits, sureties, travel-document surrender and reporting conditions.
* Criminal procedure – Bail – Application under EOCCA (sections 29(4)(d) and 36(1)) – Jurisdiction where value exceeds TShs 10,000,000. * Bail as a right – conditions for grant – security, sureties, surrender of travel documents, reporting obligations. * Economic offences – ensuring attendance where alleged large pecuniary loss exists.
|
30 July 2018 |
|
Applicant charged with forest offences granted bail; High Court imposed monetary, surety, attendance and jurisdictional conditions.
* Economic and Organized Crime Control Act – Sections 29(4)(d), 36(1), (5) and (6) – High Court jurisdiction to grant bail where Resident Magistrate lacks jurisdiction due to property value. * Bail – presumption of innocence – entitlement to bail for bailable offences. * Bail conditions – monetary deposit or immovable property as security; sureties; travel restriction; attendance requirement. * Forest Act offences – allegations of unlawful transport of government forest produce (mangrove wood and charcoal).
|
25 July 2018 |
|
Applicants charged with trafficking large quantities of drugs are not entitled to bail; quantities cannot be divided among co-accused.
Criminal law – narcotics – bail excluded where trafficking involves statutory threshold quantities; ‘sharing’ of seized quantity among jointly charged accused not permitted; non-retroactivity of subsequent lowering of statutory thresholds; proper enabling provisions for bail in drug cases (s.29(3) and s.148 CPA).
|
6 July 2018 |
|
Failure to endorse chamber summons under Advocates Act s44(2) is not fatal; omission is curable and objection dismissed.
Advocates Act s44(2) — endorsement requirement — applicability to documents prepared by unqualified person for gain (s43) — Interpretation of Laws Act s53(2) and s2(2) — meaning of "shall" — procedural irregularity curable — preliminary objection on point of law (Mukisa Biscuit principle).
|
4 July 2018 |
|
Applicants charged with economic offences granted bail subject to deposit, sureties, travel-document surrender and reporting conditions.
* Criminal procedure – Bail – Applicants charged with economic offence (causing pecuniary loss) granted bail – Court to be guided by section 36(5) EOCCA and presumption of innocence.
* Consolidation – Miscellaneous economic causes consolidated where applications arise from same pending Economic Crime Case.
* Bail conditions – Cash/immovable property deposit, two sureties (one government-employed), surrender of travel documents, reporting and verification by Resident Magistrate.
|
4 July 2018 |
|
Failure to cite both sections 29 and 36 of EOCCA renders the applicant’s bail application incompetent and is fatal.
* Criminal procedure – bail in economic crime cases – necessity to cite and apply together ss.29 and 36 EOCCA; non‑citation renders application incompetent.
* Advocates Act s.44(2) – endorsement/signature requirement – non‑mandatory in all circumstances; defect may be curable where substantial justice not impeded.
* Court Rules (Rule 6) – titling irregularity – curable procedural defect.
|
4 July 2018 |
|
Failure by the applicants to endorse the "drawn and filed" area is a curable procedural defect; objection dismissed.
Advocates Act s44(2) — endorsement of "drawn and filed" entries; read with s43; Interpretation of Laws Act s53(2) — "shall" not always imperative; curable procedural defects; preliminary objection dismissed.
|
4 July 2018 |
|
Failure to cite EOCCA s36(1) alongside s29(4)(d) renders a bail application incompetent and it was struck out.
Criminal procedure – Bail in economic crime cases – EOCCA ss.29(4)(d) and 36(1) must be read and applied together; non-citation of s.36(1) renders the application incompetent; Advocates Act s.44(2) endorsement requirement may be directory/curable where omission does not impede substantial justice.
|
4 July 2018 |