Wakilii

James Semwogerere & anoer v Uganda (Cr.Appeal No.14 of 1977)

Court of Appeal · [1978] UGCA 5 · 1978 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from High Court conviction for murder and sentence of death
Decision
Appeals against conviction and sentence of death dismissed; convictions upheld

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Court of Appeal held that, although the appellants' extra-judicial statements were doubtfully voluntary, exculpatory, and repudiated and should have carried no weight, the conviction did not rest on them but on the doctrine of recent possession. Property of the deceased was found in the appellants' possession about 20.5 hours after a robbery-murder, and they offered no explanation. The court held that where murder is committed in the course of a robbery, all participants in the robbery are equally guilty, and that the irresistible inference was that the appellants were the thieves, excluding the possibility that they were mere receivers. The appeals were dismissed.

Facts

The deceased was killed during the night of 2 February 1977 at Bbale village, having been strangled with a nylon ribbon during a robbery of her property. A child witness heard three men attack her after they locked the child in a room. The body was found the next morning; medical evidence certified death by suffocation. The two appellants were arrested about 20.5 hours later in Masaka Municipality. The first appellant was carrying a Sanyu radio and the second a bundle of three gomesis, all identified as the deceased's property. Each made an extra-judicial statement before a magistrate, but later alleged torture by police; medical evidence (Dr Lule and a medical assistant) showed recent wounds and scars corroborating the allegations. Neither appellant gave any explanation for his possession of the stolen property at trial. There was no eyewitness; the case rested on circumstantial evidence and the doctrine of recent possession.

Issues

  1. Whether the appellants' extra-judicial statements were voluntary and admissible as confessions.
  2. Whether the trial judge was entitled to convict the appellants of murder on the doctrine of recent possession of stolen goods.
  3. Whether the possibility that the appellants were mere receivers of the stolen property had been excluded.

Orders

  • The appeal of each appellant is dismissed.

Key headnotes

Criminal Evidence — Confessions — Voluntariness — Exculpatory and Repudiated Statements
An exculpatory statement that does not admit the offence charged is not a confession, and where statements are repudiated and supported by medical evidence of torture casting doubt on their voluntariness, no weight should be placed upon them.
Murder — Common Intention — Robbery Resulting in Death
Where a murder is committed in the course of a robbery, all those who participated in the robbery are equally responsible for the murder, provided the killing was a probable consequence of the common unlawful purpose and the accused is shown to have been a member of the gang sharing that purpose.
Circumstantial Evidence — Doctrine of Recent Possession — Exclusion of Receiving
A court may presume that a person found in possession of recently stolen goods is the thief, but where the theft is used to infer a further offence, the inference that the accused stole the goods must be irresistible and the possibility that he was a mere receiver must be excluded; an unexplained possession of property stolen some 20.5 hours earlier can support such an inference.

Cases cited (6)

  • Andrea Obonyo v R (1962) EA 542
  • Ezera Kyabanamaizi and Others v R (1962) EA 309
  • Kantilal Jivraj and Another v R (1961) EA 6
  • R v Jassani s/o Mohammed (1948) 15 EACA 121
  • Director of Public Prosecutions vs Neisar (1958), 3 757 at p.766
  • R v Bakari s/o Abdulla (1949) 16 EACA 84
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.