Wakilii

Wandera Fred & 2 oers v Uganda (Civil Appeal No.113 of 1999)

Court of Appeal · [2002] UGCA 3 · 2002 Appeal Allowed — Acquittal ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from High Court conviction for murder and sentence of death
Decision
Appellants acquitted and convictions and death sentences set aside

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 a trial court has a duty to consider any defence that emerges from the evidence, including self defence, even where the accused did not plead it and instead raised a false alibi. The trial judge erred in declining to avail the appellants the defence of self defence merely because it was not pleaded. On the evidence, the deceased (an armed Intelligence Officer honestly believed to be a robber) attempted to draw a pistol, the appellants reasonably feared for their lives, and there was no opportunity to retreat. The circumstances established complete self defence under section 17 of the Penal Code Act. The appeal was allowed and the appellants acquitted.

Facts

In October 1996 a taxi driver, P.W.8, was robbed of his car at gunpoint. Days later suspected car robbers were spotted at a bar. P.W.8 informed Local Defence Unit personnel and took the three appellants, who were on duty, to the bar, identifying the deceased as one of the suspected robbers. When the appellants entered, the third appellant ordered the suspects to raise their hands. The deceased instead attempted to draw a pistol. Fearing for their lives, the appellants opened fire, injuring the deceased, who was later identified as an Intelligence Officer named Shalita Michael. The deceased was taken to Mulago Hospital but died. The appellants were charged with murder. At trial the third appellant raised self defence in a retracted charge and caution statement, but all three relied on an alibi, which the court rejected. The trial judge found evidence of self defence but declined to avail it because it had not been pleaded, convicted the appellants of murder and sentenced each to death.

Issues

  1. Whether the defence of self defence was available to the appellants where there was evidence supporting it but the defence was not pleaded and the appellants instead raised a rejected alibi.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Convictions and death sentences set aside.
  • Appellants acquitted.

Key headnotes

Defences — Self Defence — Duty of Court to Consider Defences Arising on the Evidence
Where there is evidence supporting a defence such as self defence, the trial court has a duty to consider and avail that defence to the accused even though it was not pleaded or raised by the defence; failing to do so amounts to a misdirection and a miscarriage of justice.
Defences — Self Defence — Section 17 Penal Code Act — Reasonable Force and No Duty to Retreat
Under section 17 of the Penal Code Act, applying English law principles, a person violently or feloniously attacked may repel force by force, and killing the attacker is justifiable where there is reasonable necessity or an honest belief on reasonable grounds that it was necessary; in such cases there is no duty to retreat.
Defences — Self Defence — Honest and Reasonable Belief in Danger
Where the accused honestly and reasonably believe their lives are in danger and there is no opportunity to retreat, the use of deadly force may constitute complete self defence, entitling the accused to acquittal even if the person killed turns out to be innocent.
Defences — Self Defence — Question of Fact Determined on the Whole Circumstances
Whether a person acted in self defence is a question of fact, and each case must be considered and judged on its own facts and surrounding circumstances as a whole.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Penal Code Act s.183
  • Penal Code Act s.184
  • Penal Code Act s.17

Cases cited (5)

  • Mancini v DPP [1942] AC 1
  • Didasi Kebengi v Uganda (1978) HCB 216
  • Sulemani s/o Ussi v R (1963) EA 442
  • Manzi Mengi v R (1964) EA 289
  • Palmer v R [1971] 1 All ER 1077
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.