Wakilii

Nasasira Grace & Ors v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 250 of 2017)

Court of Appeal · [2020] UGCA 53 · 2020 Appeal Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second criminal appeal from the Court Martial Appeal Court arising from a General Court Martial conviction
Decision
Convictions and sentences set aside and quashed; appellants ordered released forthwith

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 allowed the second appeal, holding that the General Court Martial lacked jurisdiction. Section 184 of the UPDF Act fell outside the service offences set out in sections 120-178, so the 3rd to 6th appellants, who were not serving soldiers, should not have been charged. Further, the General Court Martial was not duly constituted because its composition changed four times without maintaining the coram and lacked a non-commissioned officer, contrary to sections 197 and 198 of the UPDF Act, violating the non-derogable right to a fair hearing. The convictions and sentences were set aside and quashed and the appellants ordered released forthwith.

Facts

Between March and May 2013, in Mityana and Kampala Districts, the 1st and 2nd appellants allegedly consciously failed to disclose to proper authorities vital information about recruitment of people for activities prejudicial to the security of Uganda, founding a charge of treachery contrary to section 129(b) of the UPDF Act. The 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th appellants were alleged to have aided and abetted the 1st and 2nd appellants in committing treachery contrary to section 184(1)(b) and (c) of the UPDF Act. The General Court Martial convicted all appellants and sentenced each to 15 years imprisonment per count to be served concurrently. The Court Martial Appeal Court upheld the convictions and sentences. The 3rd to 6th appellants were not serving soldiers. The composition of the General Court Martial changed four times during the proceedings, and there was no non-commissioned officer on the panel.

Issues

  1. Whether the General Court Martial had jurisdiction to try the appellants for the offences charged.
  2. Whether non-serving soldiers could be charged with service offences under the UPDF Act.
  3. Whether the General Court Martial was duly constituted as required by sections 197 and 198 of the UPDF Act.
  4. Whether the conviction and sentence should stand given the procedural irregularities.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Conviction of the appellants by the Court Martial Appeal Court set aside.
  • Sentences quashed.
  • Appellants to be set free forthwith.

Key headnotes

Military Courts — Jurisdiction — Service Offences under the UPDF Act
A military court has limited jurisdiction and may only try service offences set out in sections 120 to 178 of the UPDF Act; offences outside that range fall outside its jurisdiction.
Military Courts — Persons Subject to Military Law — Non-Serving Soldiers
Persons who are not serving soldiers cannot be charged with service offences under the UPDF Act as though they were soldiers.
Military Courts — Composition and Quorum — Sections 197 and 198 UPDF Act
A General Court Martial trying a capital offence must be properly constituted with all members present, a quorum of five and a non-commissioned officer; a court whose composition repeatedly changes without maintaining the coram is not duly constituted and its convictions cannot stand.
Fair Hearing — Independent and Impartial Court — Non-Derogable Right
The right to a fair hearing before an independent and impartial court under Article 28 of the Constitution is non-derogable under Article 44(c), and a person cannot be convicted by a court that is not duly constituted.

Legislation cited (9)

  • UPDF Act s.129(b)
  • UPDF Act s.184(1)(b)(c)
  • UPDF Act s.179
  • UPDF Act s.197(1)(e)
  • UPDF Act s.198(c)
  • UPDF Act s.2
  • UPDF Act ss.120-178
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 28
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 44(c)

Cases cited (4)

  • Pandya V Republic (1957) EA 336
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Lt. Ambrose Ogwang v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 2013)
  • Mohammed Mohammed Hamid v Roko Construction (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2013)
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.