Wakilii

Sempebwa and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 401 of 2019)

Court of Appeal · [2023] UGCA 260 · 2023 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from High Court convictions and sentences for murder and aggravated robbery
Decision
Both appeals dismissed; convictions for murder and aggravated robbery and the sentences of life imprisonment on each count upheld.

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 dismissed both appeals against conviction and sentence for murder and aggravated robbery. A ground that failed to specify the points wrongly decided was struck out under Rule 66(2). The accomplice evidence of PW1, a co-convict, was a competent basis for conviction and was corroborated by recovery of the deceased's original number plates from the first appellant's pit latrine and the switched plates on the recovered vehicle, invoking recent possession of stolen property. The alibi was disproved, the torture claim was unsupported by evidence, and the trial judge had adequately considered the remand period and mitigating factors. The life sentences were not illegal, harsh, or excessive.

Facts

On 7 August 2010, Nkata Raymond, a land dealer, drove to Kampala and was lured by PW1, at the first appellant's instigation, to Zana for a purported land deal. He met the appellants and one Hamza and drove them towards Nakigalala. At a farm along the way the vehicle stopped and the deceased was strangled with a belt while the first appellant held his legs. The body was driven to the first appellant's home, then taken to Ndejje and burnt after being doused in petrol. The deceased's Toyota Ipsum, registration UAM 2275, was taken by the group; its plates were switched to UAK 835R and it was later recovered from a microfinance institution where it had been mortgaged. The original number plates were recovered from the first appellant's pit latrine. PW1 pleaded guilty, was sentenced to imprisonment, and testified for the prosecution. The two appellants pleaded not guilty, were tried, convicted of murder and aggravated robbery, and sentenced to life imprisonment on each count.

Issues

  1. Whether ground one, which failed to specify the points alleged to have been wrongly decided, complied with Rule 66(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules.
  2. Whether the prosecution proved the participation of the appellants in the commission of the offences of murder and aggravated robbery.
  3. Whether the trial judge erred in relying on the uncorroborated and unreliable evidence of an accomplice, PW1.
  4. Whether the prosecution disproved the first appellant's defence of alibi.
  5. Whether the first appellant's alleged torture during and after arrest vitiated the trial.
  6. Whether the trial judge wrongly ignored the second appellant's defence and right to call a defence witness.
  7. Whether the sentences of life imprisonment were illegal, harsh, or manifestly excessive and whether the remand period was properly taken into account under Article 23(8) of the Constitution.

Orders

  • The 1st Appellant's appeal is dismissed.
  • The 2nd Appellant's appeal is dismissed.
  • In the result both appeals accordingly fail.

Key headnotes

Criminal Appeals — Grounds of Appeal — Compliance with Rule 66(2)
A ground of appeal must challenge a specific holding or ratio and specify the points alleged to have been wrongly decided; a ground that is too general and fails to identify the impugned points is incompetent and will be struck out for non-compliance with Rule 66(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules.
Accomplice Evidence — Competence and Corroboration
An accomplice is a competent witness against an accused under section 132 of the Evidence Act, and a conviction is not illegal merely because it rests on uncorroborated accomplice testimony; nevertheless it is a rule of practice to look for corroboration before acting on such evidence.
Corroboration — Nature and Sufficiency
Corroboration of accomplice evidence means independent evidence that connects the accused to the crime; it need not directly prove the offence and may be wholly circumstantial, and one accomplice cannot corroborate another.
Circumstantial Evidence — Standard for Conviction
Where a case depends on circumstantial evidence, a court may convict only where the inculpatory facts are incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation upon any reasonable hypothesis other than guilt, the evidence being weighed in its totality rather than in piecemeal.
Recent Possession of Stolen Property — Inference of Guilt
Unexplained possession by an accused of recently stolen property is an application of the rule on circumstantial evidence, and an accused's failure to explain such possession may support an inference of participation in the offence.
Sentencing — Remand Period under Article 23(8) of the Constitution
While Article 23(8) requires the remand period to be taken into account, an appellate court will not interfere with a sentence merely because the sentencing court used different words or did not state an arithmetical deduction, where it has clearly demonstrated that it took the remand period into account to the convict's credit.
Right to Call Defence Witness — Voluntary Refusal of Witness
A trial court cannot be faulted for declining to compel a witness who, having been summoned, voluntarily declines to testify; an accused's right to call a witness is not infringed where the proposed witness refuses of his own accord.

Legislation cited (9)

  • Penal Code Act s.188
  • Penal Code Act s.189
  • Penal Code Act s.285
  • Penal Code Act s.286(2)
  • Evidence Act s.132
  • Trial on Indictments Act s.39
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 art.23(8)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.66(2)
  • Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions 2013 Guideline 19

Cases cited (21)

  • National Insurance Corporation v Pelican Services (Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2003)
  • Sietco v Noble Builders (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 31 of 1995)
  • Hassan Kaule v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1987)
  • Simoni Musoke v R [1958] EA 715
  • Pandya v R [1957] EA 336
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Bogere Moses and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Saidi Bakari v Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 422 of 2013)
  • Simoni v R [1971] EA 240
  • John Serumaga and 3 Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 1996)
  • R v Baskerville [1916] 2 KB 658
  • Rwalinda John v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 0113 of 2012)
  • Rameshwar v State of Rajasthan (1952) SCR 377
  • Mbazira Siraji and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 2004)
  • Magezi Joseph v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
  • Rwabugande Moses v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2014)
  • Kyalimpa Edward v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1995)
  • Kamya Johnson Wavamuno v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2000)
  • Kiwalabye Bernard v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 2001)
  • Ogalo s/o Owoura v Republic (1954) 24 EACA 270
  • Abelle Asuman v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 66 of 2016)
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.