Wakilii

Sseruuma v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 156 of 2018)

Court of Appeal · [2023] UGCA 243 · 2023 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First appeal to the Court of Appeal from conviction and sentence by the High Court at Masaka for murder and aggravated robbery
Decision
Appeal dismissed; conviction and concurrent 30-year sentences on each count for murder and aggravated robbery 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 dismissed the appeal against conviction and sentence for murder and aggravated robbery. It held the appellant's retracted charge and caution statement was voluntary: his torture allegations were never put to the recording officers in cross-examination and were unsupported by the P24 medical form, and the prosecution discharged its burden after a trial within a trial. Recording a confession in English while it was given in Luganda was not fatal where it was read back and understood. The confession was corroborated by the appellant's phone admissions to PW2, his visit to a native doctor to conceal the crime, the post-mortem strangulation finding, and his flight. The 30-year sentence fell within the sentencing range and was neither harsh nor excessive.

Facts

Ssamula Moses was found dead by a roadside in Lwengo District in February 2014, with blood from his mouth and nose; the post-mortem attributed death to respiratory failure from strangulation. He had been robbed of cash, CDs, a bag and a Bible. Investigations led to the appellant and his co-accused, A5 Kabenge, who allegedly owed the deceased money for cattle. Speaking to PW2 by phone, the appellant admitted involvement, said he had only intended to steal not kill, named others as the killers, and promised to surrender. He and A5 visited a native doctor (PW4) seeking charms to conceal the crime, telling her they had killed a man who ran a video hall at Mbirizi. The appellant fled and was arrested in Kampala about a month later. He gave a charge and caution statement, recorded in English though spoken in Luganda, which he later retracted alleging torture. The trial Judge admitted it after a trial within a trial and convicted him on both counts.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial Judge erred in convicting the appellant on the basis of an allegedly inadmissible and uncorroborated charge and caution statement.
  2. Whether the charge and caution statement was rendered inadmissible by the failure to record it in the language the appellant used.
  3. Whether the sentence of 30 years' imprisonment on each count was illegal, harsh or excessive.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Conviction upheld.
  • Sentence of 30 years' imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently, upheld.

Key headnotes

Confessions — Retracted or repudiated confession — Burden of proving voluntariness — Trial within a trial
Where an accused who has denied an offence retracts or repudiates a charge and caution statement alleging it was procured by threat or torture, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove its voluntariness, and the court must conduct a trial within a trial to determine admissibility under section 24 of the Evidence Act.
Confessions — Allegations of torture — Failure to put allegations to recording officers in cross-examination
Allegations that a confession was obtained by torture or threats are weakened where they are not put to the recording and supervising officers in cross-examination, are inconsistent in the accused's own account, and are contradicted by contemporaneous medical examination showing no injuries; such allegations may properly be treated as an afterthought.
Confessions — Language of recording — Statement made in vernacular but recorded in English
A confession made by a suspect in a vernacular language but recorded in English is not thereby invalidated where the recording officer understood that language and read the statement back to the maker, who confirmed its correctness and signed it; the omission to record it in the spoken language is an irregularity that is not fatal.
Confessions — Corroboration of retracted confession — Conduct of accused after the crime
A retracted confession may be acted upon where it is corroborated by independent evidence; the sudden disappearance of a suspect from the area soon after the commission of a crime is conduct inconsistent with innocence and may provide corroboration of the confession.
Sentencing — Appeal — Circumstances in which an appellate court may interfere with sentence
A first appellate court may interfere with the sentence of a trial court only where the sentence is illegal, manifestly harsh or excessive, there has been a failure to exercise discretion, a material factor was not taken into account, or an error in principle was made.
Sentencing — Mitigating factors — Duty to balance against aggravating factors — Effect of omission
A sentencing judge is obliged to balance mitigating factors against aggravating factors, but a failure to expressly weigh all mitigating factors does not necessarily occasion a miscarriage of justice warranting interference where the sentence imposed is consistent with the applicable sentencing range and precedent.

Legislation cited (11)

  • Penal Code Act s.188
  • Penal Code Act s.189
  • Penal Code Act s.285
  • Penal Code Act s.286(2)
  • Evidence Act Cap 6 s.24
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.30(1)(a)
  • Judicature Act s.11
  • Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions 2013 Guideline 4
  • Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions 2013 Guideline 6(c)
  • Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions 2013 Guideline 9
  • Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions 2013 Guideline 19

Cases cited (29)

  • Bogere and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1998)
  • Paul Wanyoto Mugoya v Sgt Oumo Joshua and The Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 91 of 2021)
  • Lomania Darlington Paul & 3 Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 2011)
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (SCCA No. 10 of 1997)
  • Oryem Francis and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 231 of 2021)
  • Amos Binuge and Another v Uganda (SCCA No. 23 of 1989)
  • Ssengoja Paul v Uganda (SCCA No. 42 of 2000)
  • Festo Androa versus Uganda (supra)
  • Namulodi Hassadi versus Uganda (supra)
  • Remegious Kiwanuka v Uganda (SCCA No. 41 of 1995)
  • Lulu Festo v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 214 of 2009)
  • Nimungu Charles v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 2012)
  • Suzan Kigula versus Uganda, HCT- OO CR SC-O115
  • Uganda v Uwera Nsenga (Criminal Appeal No. 312 of 2013)
  • Rwabugande Moses v Uganda (SCCA No. 25 of 2014)
  • Nabongho Ibrahim v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 181 of 2014)
  • Kyalimpa Edward v Uganda (SCCA No. 10 of 1995)
  • R v De Haviland (1983) 5 Cr. App. R(S) 109
  • Wetsenge Robert and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 161 of 2019)
  • Magala Ramathan v Uganda (SCCA No. 1 of 2014)
  • R v Peters [2005] EWCA Crim 605
  • Kugonza Kenneth v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 109 of 2011)
  • Mujuni Frank v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 203 of 2016)
  • Aharikundira Yustina v Uganda (SCCA No. 27 of 2015)
  • Kamya Johnson Wavamunno v Uganda (SCCA No. 16 of 2000)
  • Kiwalabye Bernard v Uganda (SCCA No. 143 of 2001)
  • Bakubye Muzamiru and Another v Uganda (SCCA No. 56 of 2015)
  • Mutebi Ronald and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 2019 and No. 18 of 2020)
  • Guloba Rogers v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 57 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.