Wakilii

CPL Kasirye Hamuza & 4 Ors v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No.70 of 1999)

Court of Appeal · [2001] UGCA 17 · 2001 Appeal Partly Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from High Court convictions for murder and aggravated robbery
Decision
Appeal partly allowed; murder conviction and several robbery convictions quashed, two robbery convictions and death sentences upheld with one sentence suspended.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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 partly allowed the appeal. It held that an accused's statement may be used against a co-accused only where it amounts to a full confession; only Ndolerire's statement so qualified and was rightly used as supplementary evidence. The statement was voluntary, and the doctrine of common intention (with transferred malice) properly applied to robbers who agreed to rob but struck different victims. Identification of the second and fifth appellants was reliable. Compulsion was unavailable to the first appellant. Convictions for robbery in counts where theft was unproven, and the murder conviction lacking proof of who killed the deceased, were quashed. Two robbery convictions and the death sentences were upheld.

Facts

The appellants planned to rob a coffee factory in Jinja Industrial area. The fourth appellant hired a self-drive vehicle and supplied fuel; the first appellant drove; the third appellant housed the group and issued guns. On arrival, workers recognised the first appellant, so the group abandoned the planned robbery but resolved not to return empty-handed. They then carried out a series of random robberies along Kamuli-Buttongo Road, during which Mudooba Paul was killed. The appellants were arrested and indicted on one count of murder and five counts of aggravated robbery. Three appellants made extra-judicial statements before a Magistrate; their charge and caution statements were rejected as involuntary. At trial all denied the charges, pleading compulsion, alibi, or innocent purpose. The trial Judge convicted the fifth appellant of murder and all appellants of aggravated robbery on all counts, sentencing them to death. The appellants appealed against the convictions.

Issues

  1. Whether the extra-judicial statements of some appellants could be used in evidence against their co-accused.
  2. Whether the extra-judicial statement of the fourth appellant was made voluntarily and properly admitted.
  3. Whether the trial Judge correctly applied the doctrine of common intention to convict appellants not present when the random robberies were decided upon.
  4. Whether the second and fifth appellants were correctly identified at the scenes of crime.
  5. Whether the defence of compulsion was available to the first appellant.
  6. Whether the offence of robbery was proved in counts where no evidence of theft was led.
  7. Whether the conviction of the fifth appellant for murder was supported by evidence as to who caused the death.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed in part.
  • Conviction of the 5th appellant for murder in count I quashed and sentence set aside.
  • Convictions of the appellants for robbery in counts iii, iv and v quashed and sentences set aside.
  • Convictions of all appellants for robbery in counts ii and vi upheld, with sentence of death on each upheld.
  • Sentence in count vi suspended.

Key headnotes

Criminal Evidence — Confessions of Co-Accused — Use Against Co-Accused under Evidence Act s.28
A statement made by an accused may be used against a co-accused only where it amounts to a full confession sufficient by itself to justify the conviction of its maker for the offence for which both are jointly tried.
Criminal Evidence — Extra-Judicial Statements — Corroboration and Supplementation
An extra-judicial statement not made on oath is not accomplice evidence and cannot found a conviction, but a full confession may be used against a co-accused to supplement an otherwise substantial case against him.
Criminal Evidence — Voluntariness of Confessions — Effect of Caution
A caution duly administered by a recording Magistrate before taking an accused's statement may neutralise any earlier threats, rendering the resulting extra-judicial statement voluntary and admissible.
Common Intention — Transferred Malice — Robbery of Different Victim
Where persons share a common intention to rob, each is liable for robberies actually committed even against victims other than those originally targeted, because the intended harm is merely transferred to other victims.
Defences — Compulsion/Duress — Willing Participant
The defence of compulsion is not available to an accused who was a willing participant in a criminal venture and who did not disassociate himself when the further criminal acts were decided upon.
Identification Evidence — Quality of Identification — Need for Identification Parade
Where conditions favour correct identification — adequate daylight, sufficient duration, and close proximity — identification evidence may be accepted without corroboration or an identification parade, particularly where there is no issue of close resemblance to another person.
Aggravated Robbery — Proof of Ingredients — Theft
Theft is an essential ingredient of robbery and must be proved beyond reasonable doubt; a conviction for robbery cannot stand where no evidence of theft is led on the relevant count.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Penal Code Act s.183
  • Penal Code Act s.272
  • Penal Code Act s.273(2)
  • Evidence Act s.28

Cases cited (5)

  • Festo Androa Asenua and Anor v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1998)
  • Mohamed Mukasa and Anor v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 1995)
  • Ezera Kyabanamaizi and other vs R (1962) EA 309 at 311
  • Abdalla Nabulere and 2 others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 1978)
  • Cpl Wasswa and Ninsiima Dan v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 1999)
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.