Wakilii

Byamukamav Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 381 of 2014)

Court of Appeal · [2022] UGCA 111 · 2022 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First criminal appeal from High Court conviction and sentence for murder and aggravated robbery
Decision
Appeal dismissed; convictions for murder and aggravated robbery and concurrent 20-year sentences 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 trial Judge erred by failing to consider the defence of intoxication that arose on the evidence, the error occasioned no miscarriage of justice because the defence would have failed. Voluntary intoxication is not a defence under section 12 of the Penal Code Act, and the evidence showed the appellant purchased and consumed waragi voluntarily. The convictions for murder and aggravated robbery were upheld. On sentence, the Court found the concurrent 20-year terms fell within established sentencing ranges for murder and aggravated robbery and were neither harsh nor manifestly excessive. The appeal was dismissed.

Facts

On 10 December 2011 at Nabukeera Plaza in Kampala, the deceased Lubwama Umar and PW3 Tumwebaze were among a group constructing toilets. The appellant and another person were armed security guards who had reported for duty and appeared to have been drinking. The guards harassed the group, demanded they stop work, and a confrontation ensued. In the commotion the deceased was shot in the knee and bled seriously. The guards then ordered the group to lie down and demanded money; PW3 paid Shs.100,000, and after the guards refused to allow the injured deceased to be taken to hospital, a further Shs.400,000. The deceased was taken to Nsambya Hospital but died soon after. Police later arrested the appellant at the scene, found him holding a bottle of waragi, and he made a charge and caution statement admitting the shooting. The High Court convicted him of murder and aggravated robbery and sentenced him to two concurrent 20-year terms.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial Judge erred in failing to consider the defence of intoxication available on the evidence, and whether that defence could reduce the murder conviction to manslaughter or defeat the aggravated robbery charge.
  2. Whether the concurrent sentences of 20 years imprisonment for murder and aggravated robbery were harsh and excessive.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Convictions for murder and aggravated robbery upheld.
  • Concurrent sentences of 20 years imprisonment maintained.

Key headnotes

Criminal Law — Defence of Intoxication — Voluntary Intoxication Not a Defence
Under section 12 of the Penal Code Act, intoxication is not generally a defence to a criminal charge; it avails an accused only where the intoxicated state was caused without his consent by the malicious or negligent act of another, and voluntary intoxication therefore cannot found a defence.
Criminal Law — Defences — Duty of Trial Court to Consider Defences Arising on the Evidence
A trial court is under a duty to evaluate every defence disclosed by the evidence even where the accused does not expressly rely on it; failure to do so is an error, though it occasions no miscarriage of justice where the defence would inevitably have failed.
Criminal Law — Sentencing — Appellate Interference with Sentence
An appellate court will interfere with a sentence only where the trial court acted on a wrong principle, overlooked a material factor, or imposed a sentence that is illegal or manifestly harsh and excessive; sentences within established sentencing ranges will not be disturbed.

Legislation cited (6)

  • Penal Code Act, Cap. 120 s.188
  • Penal Code Act, Cap. 120 s.189
  • Penal Code Act, Cap. 120 s.285
  • Penal Code Act, Cap. 120 s.286(2)
  • Penal Code Act, Cap. 120 s.12
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 r.30(1)(a)

Cases cited (11)

  • Kiyengo Zaverio v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 2003)
  • Atiku Lino v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2009)
  • Uganda v Adriko (Criminal Session Case No. 64 of 2014)
  • Okema v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 1999)
  • Kiwalabye Bernard v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 2001)
  • Kyarikunda Richard v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 296 of 2009)
  • Aramanthan Hassan and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 715 of 2015)
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Livingstone Kakooza v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 1993)
  • Kyalimpa Edward v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1995)
  • Muhwezi Bayon v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 198 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.