The Kampala Capital City Hall Magistrates Court has denied bail to a 47-year-old former sales manager accused of stealing money and goods worth Shs294.648 million from Byter Agriculture Uganda Limited, a company owned by Chinese nationals. Medi Mubiru, a resident of Buwambo Village, Gombe Parish, Nansana Municipality in Wakiso District, was denied bail after Senior Principal Magistrate Nicholas Aisu found that the three sureties presented by his lawyers had not demonstrated sufficient financial capacity to answer for the alleged loss if he absconded from trial.
Mubiru was first charged on September 11, 2026, and remanded to Luzira Prison. He returned to court on September 17 and formally applied for bail while maintaining his innocence. The prosecution alleges that between 2023 and 2026, Mubiru, while working as a Sales Manager and sales representative at Byter Agriculture Uganda Limited, stole company money and goods valued at Shs294,648,000. The case was reported to police by Jin Bo, the company’s director and complainant, after the company allegedly discovered transactions involving its money and goods that it considered irregular.
According to the prosecution, investigations traced several transactions allegedly linked to Mubiru, including banking records obtained from Centenary Bank. Investigators also allegedly established that Mubiru received about Shs82 million from a farm in Kayunga. The prosecution further relied on electronic communications allegedly exchanged between Mubiru and Jin Bo. The State told the court that WhatsApp messages had been retrieved in which Mubiru allegedly apologised to Jin Bo and admitted committing the offence.
Investigators also reportedly obtained company documents, including an invoice dated July 3, 2026, and dispatch records that the prosecution said linked Mubiru to orders for the goods in question. Mobile-money and bank account records, as well as an exhibit involving Shs1 million allegedly recovered during investigations, were also presented as part of the prosecution evidence. State Attorney Mercy Yamangusho told the court that investigations had been completed and that the evidence gathered was sufficient to support the theft charge under Sections 237 and 244 of the Penal Code Act.
The State subsequently asked the court to fix a hearing date. During the bail hearing, defence lawyer Walusansa Mbaaga presented three sureties and asked the court to release Mubiru on bail. The first surety, Lizzy Namuli, is Mubiru’s wife and a clothes businesswoman based in Buwambo. The defence presented a Local Council One letter introducing her as a surety. The second, Ivan Senkubuge, is a cousin of Mubiru and a resident of Kayebe Cell, Bulamu Ward, Kasangati Town Council in Wakiso District.
The third surety was Harriet Nakintu, also presented as a resident of Buwambo. Mbaaga argued that the three were substantial sureties and asked the court to exercise its discretion in favour of his client. The prosecution strongly opposed the application, alleging that Mubiru had gone on the run after the case was reported and switched off his known telephone contacts, forcing police to conduct an extensive search before locating him. The State also raised concerns about the safety of witnesses and the complainant, Jin Bo. The prosecution told the court that during the period police were searching for Mubiru, a potential witness identified as Tom Kiyimba was killed.
The State said other witnesses were now living in fear. The prosecution further argued that the Shs294.648 million alleged loss was substantial and that the sureties had not demonstrated the financial capacity to answer for the amount should Mubiru abscond. The State therefore asked the court to deny bail, or impose stringent conditions if the magistrate decided to release him. Mbaaga argued that bail is a constitutional right and reminded the court that Mubiru remains presumed innocent until he pleads guilty or is convicted after trial.
He challenged the prosecution’s claim concerning Kiyimba’s alleged killing, arguing that the State had not provided evidence establishing the death or linking it to his client. The lawyer also disputed the prosecution’s assessment of the sureties’ financial capacity, saying the State had not explained how it had determined that they were incapable of standing surety. Mbaaga further argued that Mubiru had previously been a business associate of the complainant and was an ordinary Ugandan without the influence alleged by the prosecution.
He assured the court that Mubiru was willing to report whenever required and comply with any conditions imposed by the court. In his ruling, Magistrate Aisu said Mubiru remains presumed innocent because he has not been convicted of the alleged offence. He acknowledged Mubiru’s right to apply for bail but said granting bail is a matter within the court’s discretion and requires the court to give reasons for either granting or refusing the application. Aisu said he had considered the circumstances of the case against the grounds provided under Section 77 of the Magistrates Courts Act.
The magistrate noted that the offence is bailable before his court and does not involve violence. However, he said the value of the alleged loss—Shs294,648,000—was a significant consideration when assessed against the sureties presented by the defence. Aisu found that the sureties were not substantial because they had failed to demonstrate the means to answer for the amount involved. He also noted that, apart from financial capacity, substantial sureties should be persons of some social standing within the community.
The magistrate referred to the decision in Kaganda Moses versus Uganda, Miscellaneous Application No. 49 of 2023, in considering the requirements for substantial sureties. Aisu said the evidence before him did not demonstrate that Mubiru’s sureties had the financial capacity required to answer for the alleged loss, observing that their primary role appeared to be securing the release of their relative.
He consequently declined to exercise his discretion to release Mubiru, either with or without sureties. Mubiru was ordered to remain in custody. Following the ruling, Yamangusho asked the court to set a hearing date. The case was subsequently adjourned to October 20, 2026, for hearing, and Mubiru was further remanded to Luzira Prison. The court also directed that disclosure be undertaken at the expense of the defence. Several Chinese nationals attended the court proceedings-URN. Give us feedback on this story through our email: kamwokyatimes@gmail.com
