Wakilii

Semaganda and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 456 of 2016)

Court of Appeal · [2023] UGCA 200 · 2023 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First appeal to the Court of Appeal from a High Court conviction and sentence for murder
Decision
Appeal against conviction and the 50-year sentence for murder dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 8 (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 appeal against conviction and sentence for murder. It held that the circumstantial evidence was incompatible with the appellants' innocence and incapable of any reasonable hypothesis other than guilt, and that their conduct and false accounts destroyed their alibi. The second appellant's age was proved as 20 years by an undisputed PF24, so he was rightly tried as an adult. On sentence, although the trial judge wrongly treated lack of remorse as an aggravating factor, no miscarriage of justice was shown because other aggravating factors were considered; the Rwabugande Moses remand-deduction principle did not apply retrospectively. The 50-year sentence was not illegal, harsh or manifestly excessive and was upheld.

Facts

The deceased, Kayizi Lozio, went missing after spending a night away from home. On the morning of 28 March 2011 his family found a pool of blood near the roadside in Maya village, Luwero District, and discovered his body a few metres away. Later that morning a traditional healer reported to police that two men were in his shrine seeking spiritual cleansing, having killed their brother whom they accused of bewitching them. Police arrested the two appellants at the shrine. The first appellant was a nephew of the deceased and the second a half-brother; the relationship had long been bitter, including a prior incident in which the deceased was seriously assaulted on the head. The prosecution case rested on circumstantial evidence, including the appellants' delayed and contradictory accounts of their movements, their flight to the healer, and the long-standing grudge. The appellants denied the offence and raised an alibi. The deceased's stomach and intestines had been cut into pieces.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial judge erred in relying on circumstantial evidence to convict the appellants and whether that evidence properly placed them at the scene of the crime.
  2. Whether the appellants' alibi was destroyed by the prosecution evidence.
  3. Whether the second appellant was a minor at the time of the offence and was tried and convicted under the wrong procedure and law.
  4. Whether the trial judge sentenced the appellants on a wrong principle of law, including treating lack of remorse as an aggravating factor and the treatment of time spent on remand.
  5. Whether the sentence of 50 years' imprisonment was manifestly harsh and excessive.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The sentence is upheld.

Key headnotes

Criminal Evidence — Circumstantial Evidence — Test for Conviction
Where the prosecution case depends solely on circumstantial evidence, the court must, before convicting, be satisfied that the inculpatory facts are incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation upon any reasonable hypothesis other than guilt, and that there are no other co-existing circumstances which weaken or destroy the inference of guilt.
Criminal Evidence — Circumstantial Evidence — Caution Required
Circumstantial evidence must be treated with caution and narrowly examined because it can easily be fabricated; it should be assessed with an open mind, and a conviction may follow only where the only rational inference is the guilt of the accused.
Criminal Evidence — Conduct of Accused — Inference of Guilt
The unexplained or unreasonable conduct of an accused, such as failing to act as an innocent relative would, giving false and contradictory accounts, and resorting to a traditional healer in a manner consistent with an intention to destroy evidence, may properly support an inference of guilt drawn from circumstantial evidence.
Criminal Procedure — Defence of Alibi — Destruction by Prosecution Evidence
An accused who raises an alibi bears no burden to prove it, but the prosecution may destroy the alibi by placing the accused at the scene of the crime through the evidence as a whole.
Criminal Procedure — Age of Accused — Proof by Medical Examination
Where a Police Form 24 medical age assessment is admitted in evidence without dispute and forms part of agreed facts, it is proof of the accused's actual age, and an accused so found to be an adult is properly tried and convicted under the ordinary procedure rather than as a minor.
Sentencing — Aggravating Factors — Lack of Remorse
It is inappropriate to treat an accused's lack of remorse as an aggravating factor in sentencing, since doing so would fetter the right of appeal; however, an appellant must demonstrate that such an error occasioned a miscarriage of justice where other valid aggravating factors were considered.
Sentencing — Time Spent on Remand — Non-retrospective Application of Rwabugande Moses
The principle that a sentencing court must arithmetically deduct the period spent on remand, established in Rwabugande Moses v Uganda, does not apply retrospectively; for sentences passed before that principle, it suffices that the court considered the remand period in accordance with the law then in force.

Legislation cited (15)

  • Penal Code Act Cap 120 s.188
  • Penal Code Act Cap 120 s.189
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 r.66(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 r.2(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 r.30(1)(a)
  • Trial on Indictment Act s.66(3)
  • Trial on Indictment Act s.66
  • Children's Act
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda art.23(8)
  • Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) Practice Directions 2013 r.15(2)
  • Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) Practice Directions 2013 para.6(c)
  • Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) Practice Directions 2013 para.19(1)
  • Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) Practice Directions 2013 para.19(2)
  • Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) Practice Directions 2013 para.20
  • Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) Practice Directions 2013 para.21

Cases cited (28)

  • Sekitoleko v Uganda [1976] EA 531
  • Bogere and Another v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Sseremba Dennis v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 480 of 2017)
  • Akbar Godi vs. Uganda C.A.CA, No.20ll
  • Simon Musoke v R [1958] EA 715
  • Teper v R [1952] AC 480
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Byaruhango Fodori v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2002); [2005] 1 ULSR 12
  • Tindigwihura Mbahe v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 1987)
  • Sserubega v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 147 of 2008)
  • Tayebwa Isaac v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 0174 of 2013)
  • Abasi Kanyike v Uganda [1993] KALR 15
  • Kakooza Livingstone vs. Uganda, [1997] SCCA 17/1993
  • Kiwalabye Bernard v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 2001)
  • Umar Sebidde v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 2002)
  • Ederema Tomasi v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 554 of 2014)
  • Josephine Arissol v R [1957] EA 447
  • Ainobushobozi v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 241 of 2014)
  • Francis Bwalatum v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 48 of 2011)
  • Kabatera Steven v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 123 of 2001)
  • Bbale Godfrey v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 324 of 2014)
  • Tumwesigye Anthony v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2012)
  • Mutatina Patrick and Another v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 137 of 2011)
  • Mattaka v Republic (1971) EA 495
  • Rwabugande Moses v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2014)
  • Opolot Justine and Another v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2014)
  • Paul Kibolo Nasimolo v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2017)
  • Kaddu Karule Lawrence v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 72 of 2018)
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.