Wakilii

Kiiza v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 177 of 2013)

Court of Appeal · [2022] UGCA 61 · 2022 Appeal Partly Allowed — Sentence Reduced ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from High Court conviction and sentence for murder
Decision
Conviction for murder upheld; sentence reduced from 60 years to 25 years' imprisonment, appellant to serve 21 years and 10 months from date of conviction.

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 upheld the murder conviction, finding that the appellant's retracted charge and caution statement—properly admitted despite being recorded in English after translation from Lukiga—together with his prior threats against the deceased and PW4 and his conduct of fleeing the village for over six months, provided sufficient direct and circumstantial evidence placing him at the scene and disproving his alibi. Confessions made while in police custody to lay witnesses contravened section 23(1) of the Evidence Act and had no evidential value. However, the court found the 60-year sentence harsh and manifestly excessive, set it aside, and substituted a sentence of 25 years (21 years and 10 months after deducting remand time).

Facts

Prior to the murder, the appellant had attacked his grandmother (PW4), and when the deceased Medius Nyesiga intervened, the appellant threatened to kill both. On the night of 6 May 2010, while the deceased and PW4 slept, a group of attackers entered the house. The deceased cried out that she was being killed; a boy named Brian raised an alarm and the assailants fled. PW4 found the deceased in a pool of blood with a deep neck cut; she died shortly after. PW4 had not seen the attackers' faces but suspected the appellant due to his prior threats. The matter was reported to police, but the appellant disappeared from the village for over six months before his arrest on 12 November 2010. In a charge and caution statement, the appellant admitted leading two hired men to the deceased's home, intending to kill PW4, but the wrong person was killed. The appellant raised an alibi, claiming he was working in Kasese on the night in question.

Issues

  1. Whether the ingredient of participation in the murder was proved against the appellant.
  2. Whether the trial judge erred in rejecting the appellant's defence of alibi.
  3. Whether the charge and caution statement was properly recorded and admissible.
  4. Whether the sentence of 60 years' imprisonment was harsh and manifestly excessive.

Orders

  • Appeal against conviction dismissed.
  • Sentence of 60 years' imprisonment set aside.
  • Substituted sentence of 25 years' imprisonment imposed.
  • After deducting 3 years and 2 months pre-trial custody, appellant to serve 21 years and 10 months from 5 December 2013.

Key headnotes

Criminal Evidence — Confessions in Police Custody — Section 23(1) Evidence Act
A confession made by a person while in the custody of a police officer to lay witnesses is of no evidential value and cannot be proved against that person unless made in the immediate presence of a police officer of or above the rank of assistant inspector or a magistrate.
Criminal Evidence — Charge and Caution Statement — Recording in English After Translation
A charge and caution statement recorded in English rather than the suspect's vernacular is not fatal where it is read back to the suspect in a language he understands and he signs it; a separate translator is unnecessary where the recording officer is well versed in the suspect's language.
Criminal Evidence — Retracted and Repudiated Confessions — Conviction
A court may convict on a retracted or repudiated confession alone, with caution, if satisfied after considering all material factors and surrounding circumstances that the confession is true, though corroboration by independent evidence is usually sought.
Right to Liberty — Delay in Recording Statement — Article 23(4) Constitution
Unexplained delay in recording a charge and caution statement, where it results in detention beyond 48 hours, violates the right to liberty under Article 23(4) of the Constitution, but does not render the statement inadmissible unless the delay was deliberately designed to procure an involuntary confession.
Defence of Alibi — Burden of Proof
An accused who sets up an alibi assumes no burden to prove its truth; the prosecution must disprove the alibi by adducing credible evidence placing the accused at the scene of the crime at the relevant time.
Sentencing — Appellate Interference — Manifestly Excessive Sentence
An appellate court may interfere with a sentence only where it is illegal, founded on a wrong principle, results from failure to consider a material factor, or is harsh and manifestly excessive; a sentence out of range with comparable murder sentences will be substituted.

Legislation cited (6)

  • Penal Code Act s.188
  • Penal Code Act s.189
  • Evidence Act s.23(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 23(4)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 Rule 30
  • Sentencing Guidelines Guideline No.6(c)

Cases cited (21)

  • [1998] UGSC 2
  • [2015] UGSC 17
  • [2004] UGSC 22
  • Remegious Kiwanuka v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 1995)
  • [2017] UGSC 40
  • [1998] UGSC 22
  • [1998] UGSC 20
  • Kedi Martin v Uganda UGSC 27
  • [2002] UGSC 10
  • [2003] UGSC 29
  • [2004] UGSC 31
  • [2001] KALR 10
  • [1967] 1 EA 84
  • [2018] UGSC 9
  • [1994] UGSC 1
  • Kiwalabye Bernard v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2000)
  • [2018] UGSC 49
  • Naturinda Tamson v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2011)
  • [2009] UGSC 6
  • [2017] UGCA 70
  • [2014] UGCA 61
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.