Turyahabwe v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 0156 of 2010)

Court of Appeal · [2014] UGCA 74 · 2014 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Criminal appeal from High Court conviction and sentence for murder (two consolidated appeals)

Decision

Convictions and sentences of murder upheld for all appellants except A5, who was discharged after charges against him had been withdrawn.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 4 (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 dismissed the appeals against conviction and sentence for murder. It held that, on re-evaluation, prosecution eyewitnesses had positively identified the appellants as part of a mob that twice attacked the deceased's home, in daylight and as persons previously known, ruling out mistaken identity. Malice aforethought was proved under section 191 of the Penal Code Act given the cut wounds and weapons used, and a common intention under section 22 was established by the coordinated conduct of the mob. The witness A3 was a captive, not an accomplice, so corroboration concerns did not arise. The convictions and sentences were upheld; appellant A5, whose charges had been withdrawn, was discharged.

Facts

On 24 November 2007 the deceased, Narohoza Richard, and his sister PW1 were at home when a large mob laid siege to the homestead. PW1 identified A1 (the area Trading Centre Chairman) and other appellants among the crowd. On A2's order, the deceased was tied kandoya and beaten. The mob vandalised and burnt houses, destroyed a banana plantation and slaughtered cattle. Police fired into the air but were overpowered and fled. The mob withdrew, then returned in the afternoon. The deceased, too weak to flee, was dragged and struck on the head with a stick and cut on the thigh with a panga; he died of haemorrhagic shock from multiple cut wounds confirmed by postmortem. The appellants were arrested while roasting meat from the victim's cattle near the home. PW1 and PW2, who knew the appellants from the same village, identified them. A3, the deceased's brother, was a captive of the mob compelled to act against his will. All appellants pleaded not guilty, raised alibi defences and were represented by counsel at trial.

Issues

Whether there was sufficient evidence to convict the appellants of murder in the absence of evidence of specific roles played by each.
Whether the prosecution witnesses properly identified the appellants as part of the mob.
Whether the trial judge properly evaluated allegedly inconsistent identification evidence.
Whether malice aforethought was proved.
Whether the appellants' defence of alibi was properly rejected.
Whether the trial judge wrongly relied on uncorroborated accomplice evidence.
Whether the appellants shared a common intention to commit the offence.

Orders

Appellant No. 5 (Nuwamanya Ronald) discharged and set free as charges against him had been withdrawn.
Ground 1 of the memorandum of appeal struck out for offending Rule 66(2).
Both consolidated appeals dismissed.
Decision of the High Court upheld.
Sentences of each appellant confirmed.
Appellants to serve the remaining part of the sentences imposed.

Key headnotes

Murder — Common Intention — Liability of Mob Participants under Penal Code Act s.22

Where two or more persons form a common intention to prosecute an unlawful purpose and an offence is committed as a probable consequence, each participant is deemed to have committed the offence; coordinated conduct of a mob in attacking, destroying property and killing establishes common intention even absent proof of the specific role of each member.

Identification — Recognition of Persons Previously Known in Daylight

Identification evidence is reliable where the witnesses are eyewitnesses who knew the assailants beforehand from the same village, observed events at close range in broad daylight and over ample time, thereby excluding the possibility of honest but mistaken identity.

Accomplice Evidence — Person Compelled to Participate as Captive is Not an Accomplice

A person who participates in a crime only as a captive of the perpetrators, acting against his will under compulsion, is not an accomplice, and the corroboration requirement applicable to accomplice evidence does not apply to his testimony.

Murder — Proof of Malice Aforethought under Penal Code Act s.191

Malice aforethought is established where the nature of the injuries and the weapons used, corroborated by a postmortem report showing multiple deep cut wounds, demonstrate an intention to cause death or knowledge that death would probably result.

Memorandum of Appeal — Requirement to Identify Parties Specifically under Rule 66(2)

A ground of appeal that fails to specify by name the appellants against whom it is alleged no evidence was adduced offends Rule 66(2) of the Rules of the Court of Appeal and is liable to be struck out.

Defence of Alibi — Displacement by Positive Identification

A defence of alibi is disproved where prosecution eyewitnesses positively identify and place the accused at the scene of the crime; an accused who is represented, gives evidence and closes the defence case without indicating any witness cannot later complain of denial of an opportunity to call witnesses.

Legislation cited (7)

Penal Code Act s.188
Penal Code Act s.189
Penal Code Act s.191
Penal Code Act s.22
Evidence Act s.59(a)
Rules of the Court of Appeal Rule 30(1)(a)
Rules of the Court of Appeal Rule 66(2)

Cases cited (3)

Stanley Kurong v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 314 of 2003)
Fr. Narsensio Begumisa and Others v Eric Tibebaaga (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2002)
Ismail Kisegerwa and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 1978)

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.