The Kampala Capital City Hall Magistrates Court has declined to grant bail to a former sales manager accused of stealing cash and agricultural products valued at Shs294.648 million from Byter Agriculture Uganda Limited.
Medi Mubiru, 47, a resident of Buwambo Village in Gombe Parish, Nansana Municipality, Wakiso District, appeared before Senior Principal Magistrate Nicholas Aisu, who ruled that the three people presented as his sureties had not demonstrated sufficient financial capacity to meet the alleged loss in the event that Mubiru absconded from trial.
Mubiru was charged on September 11, 2026, and subsequently remanded to Luzira Prison. He returned to court on September 17, when he applied for bail and denied the allegations against him.
Prosecution alleges that between 2023 and 2026, Mubiru exploited his positions as sales manager and sales representative at Byter Agriculture Uganda Limited to obtain company money and goods worth Shs294,648,000.
The company, which is owned by Chinese nationals, reported the matter to police through its director, Jin Bo, after allegedly discovering transactions involving its funds and merchandise that it considered irregular.
During the investigations, police reportedly obtained banking records from Centenary Bank and traced transactions allegedly connected to Mubiru. Investigators also told court that Mubiru received approximately Shs82 million from a farm in Kayunga.
The prosecution further relied on electronic communications allegedly exchanged between Mubiru and Jin Bo. Investigators reportedly retrieved WhatsApp conversations in which Mubiru allegedly apologised to the company director and admitted involvement in the offence.
Other evidence cited by the State included company records, an invoice dated July 3, 2026, dispatch documents, mobile money records and bank statements. Prosecutors also referred to Shs1 million allegedly recovered during the investigation.
State Attorney Mercy Yamangusho told court that investigations had been completed and that the evidence gathered was sufficient to support the charges under Sections 237 and 244 of the Penal Code Act. She consequently asked the magistrate to set the matter down for hearing.
Defence Seeks Release
Mubiru’s lawyer, Walusansa Mbaaga, presented three people as sureties and asked the court to release his client on bail.
The first surety was Lizzy Namuli, Mubiru’s wife and a clothes businesswoman from Buwambo. She was introduced to court through a Local Council One letter.
The second was Ivan Senkubuge, identified as Mubiru’s cousin and a resident of Kayebe Cell, Bulamu Ward, Kasangati Town Council in Wakiso District.
Harriet Nakintu, also from Buwambo, was presented as the third surety.
Mbaaga argued that the three were suitable and substantial sureties and asked the magistrate to exercise his discretion in favour of Mubiru.
The prosecution, however, opposed the application and claimed that Mubiru had gone into hiding after the case was reported. According to the State, he switched off his known telephone contacts, forcing investigators to conduct an extensive search before locating him.
Prosecutors also raised concerns about the safety of the complainant and potential witnesses.
The State told court that during the period investigators were searching for Mubiru, a potential witness identified as Tom Kiyimba was killed. Prosecutors said the incident had heightened concerns among other witnesses, who were allegedly living in fear.
The State further argued that the alleged financial loss was substantial and that the proposed sureties had not shown that they possessed sufficient resources to meet the amount should Mubiru fail to return to court.
The prosecution therefore asked the magistrate to reject the bail application or, alternatively, impose strict conditions if bail was granted.
Mbaaga maintained that Mubiru is entitled to bail and remains presumed innocent until proven guilty.
He challenged the prosecution’s account regarding Kiyimba’s death, arguing that no evidence had been presented to establish the circumstances of the alleged killing or connect it to his client.
The lawyer also questioned the State’s assessment of the sureties’ financial standing, arguing that the prosecution had not adequately demonstrated why they were considered incapable of standing surety.
Mbaaga further told court 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 his client was ready to report whenever required and comply with any conditions imposed if released.
Magistrate Rejects Bail
In his ruling, Aisu acknowledged that Mubiru had not been convicted and therefore remained presumed innocent.
The magistrate said Mubiru had a right to seek bail but noted that its grant was discretionary and that the court was required to consider the circumstances of each case before making a decision.
Aisu considered the application against the grounds provided under Section 77 of the Magistrates Courts Act.
He observed that the offence was bailable before his court and that it did not involve violence. However, he said the alleged loss of Shs294,648,000 was a significant factor when considering whether the proposed sureties were adequate.
The magistrate found that the three sureties had not demonstrated the financial ability required to answer for the alleged amount.
Aisu also observed that a substantial surety should, in addition to having the necessary financial capacity, possess an appropriate level of social standing within the community.
In reaching his decision, the magistrate referred to the High Court decision in Kaganda Moses versus Uganda, Miscellaneous Application No. 49 of 2023, concerning the requirements for substantial sureties.
Aisu said the material before him did not establish that Mubiru’s proposed sureties had the financial means to answer for the alleged loss. He further observed that their primary role appeared to be securing the release of their relative.
The magistrate consequently declined to release Mubiru, either on his own recognisance or with sureties.
Mubiru was ordered to remain in Luzira Prison.
After the ruling, Yamangusho asked the court to fix the case for hearing. The magistrate subsequently adjourned the matter to October 20, 2026, for hearing and further remanded Mubiru to Luzira Prison.
The court also directed that disclosure of the prosecution evidence be undertaken at the expense of the defence.
Several Chinese nationals attended the proceedings.
English 