Wakilii

Matata Bwambale and Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 248 of 2019)

Court of Appeal · [2023] UGCA 326 · 2023 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First appeal to the Court of Appeal against conviction and sentence for murder by the High Court at Mbarara
Decision
Appeal dismissed; convictions and sentences for murder upheld; appellants to continue serving their sentences.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 3 (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. Although the trial court omitted to read the ingredients of the offence before recording the pleas of guilty, this irregularity occasioned no failure of justice under s.139 of the Trial on Indictments Act. No trial within a trial was required because torture was alleged only after the appellant had pleaded guilty, was convicted and had become a prosecution witness, and the confession was corroborated by video and fingerprint evidence. A deceased officer's recorded statement was admissible under s.30(b) of the Evidence Act, and s.166 saved the conviction given independent evidence. The 2022 Exhibits Practice Directions did not apply retrospectively to a 2012 trial. The sentences were within the lawful range.

Facts

The deceased, a hardware businessman, received a phone call at home one evening and drove off, never to return; the next morning his car was found by the roadside with his dead body inside. Investigations showed the deceased had given over UGX 80 million to the 1st appellant, a witch doctor, who had failed to repay it. The 1st appellant tricked the deceased into meeting near a water dam, where the appellants administered a poisonous liquid causing his death; they then loaded his body into his vehicle and abandoned it. The appellants made charge and caution statements describing their roles, and forensic fingerprint evidence and a video recording linked them to the crime. The 1st and 2nd appellants pleaded guilty and were convicted on their pleas, later testifying for the prosecution against the 3rd and 4th appellants, who were convicted after a full trial. Post-mortem and laboratory analysis established death by poisoning.

Issues

  1. Whether the convictions of the 1st and 2nd appellants on a plea of guilty were vitiated by failure to follow the procedure for recording a plea of guilty laid down in Adan v Republic.
  2. Whether the charge and caution statements were irregularly admitted, including whether a trial within a trial was required where torture was alleged and whether a statement could be tendered by a person who did not record it.
  3. Whether the video recording and fingerprint report were improperly admitted to convict the 3rd and 4th appellants.
  4. Whether the appellants were denied effective legal representation at the trial.
  5. Whether the sentences imposed were manifestly harsh and excessive.

Orders

  • The conviction of the lower Court is upheld.
  • The sentence of the lower Court is upheld; the appellants will continue serving their sentence.
  • Appeal is dismissed.

Key headnotes

Criminal Procedure — Plea of Guilty — Effect of non-compliance with the Adan procedure
An irregularity in recording a plea of guilty, such as omitting to explain the ingredients of the offence, does not vitiate the resulting conviction unless it has in fact occasioned a failure of justice within the meaning of section 139 of the Trial on Indictments Act.
Evidence — Confessions — Allegation of torture and the need for a trial within a trial
Where an accused alleges torture only after he has pleaded guilty, been convicted and become a prosecution witness, and does not retract his confession, no trial within a trial is required, and the confession may be relied upon where corroborated by independent evidence.
Evidence — Hearsay — Admission of a statement recorded by a deceased officer under section 30(b) of the Evidence Act
A statement recorded by an officer who is dead may be admitted under section 30(b) of the Evidence Act only where evidence is led establishing that the author is dead, cannot be found, or whose attendance cannot be procured without unreasonable delay or expense.
Evidence — Improper admission — Effect under section 166 of the Evidence Act
The improper admission of evidence is not itself a ground for reversal of a conviction where there is other independent and sufficient evidence to justify the decision.
Evidence — Electronic evidence — Non-retrospective application of practice directions
The Constitution (Management of Exhibits) (Practice) Directions, 2022 do not apply retrospectively, and a trial court conducting a trial in 2012 cannot be faulted for failing to follow procedure that did not then exist.
Criminal Procedure — Sentencing — Appellate interference and consistency
An appellate court will not interfere with the sentencing discretion of the trial court unless the sentence is illegal or so manifestly excessive as to amount to an injustice; consistency in sentencing is neither a mitigating nor an aggravating factor, and a sentence within the prescribed range is not manifestly excessive.

Legislation cited (19)

  • Penal Code Act Cap 120 s.188
  • Penal Code Act Cap 120 s.189
  • Trial on Indictments Act Cap 23 s.60
  • Trial on Indictments Act Cap 23 s.63
  • Trial on Indictments Act Cap 23 s.139
  • Evidence Act s.24
  • Evidence Act s.27
  • Evidence Act s.30(b)
  • Evidence Act s.166
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 28
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 126
  • Identification of Offenders Act Cap 229 s.2(1)
  • Identification of Offenders Act Cap 229 s.4
  • Civil Procedure Act s.88
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 Rule 30(1)(a)
  • Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations 1977 reg.11
  • Constitution (Management of Exhibits) (Practice) Directions 2022 Directive 15
  • Constitutional (Sentencing Guidelines for the Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions Legal Notice No. 8 of 2013 para 6(c)
  • Electronic Transactions Act 2011

Cases cited (28)

  • Adan v Republic [1973] EA 445
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Tomasi Mufumu v R [1995] EA 625
  • Sebuliba Siraji v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 319 of 2019)
  • Amos Binuge & Ors v Uganda [1991] UGSC 5
  • Dusabe Mashambele Odeta v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 070 of 2016)
  • Joseph Kawoya v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 1999)
  • Olega v Alidriga (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2013) [2016] UGHCCD 63
  • Steve M. Solomon, Jr., Inc. Vs. Edgar 88 S.E.2d 167 (Ga. Ct. App. 195)
  • Jackson Zita v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 1995)
  • Kyalimpa Edward v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 1995)
  • Livingstone Kakooza v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 1993)
  • Kiwalabye Bernard v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 2001)
  • Naturinda Tamson v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2011)
  • Mbunya Godfrey v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2011)
  • Attorney General v Susan Kigula & Others (Supreme Court Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2005)
  • Akbar Hussein Godi v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2013)
  • Bakubye Muzamiru and Another v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2015)
  • Okello Geoffrey v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2014)
  • Biryomumaisho Alex v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 464 of 2014)
  • Katureebe Boaz and another v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 066 of 2011)
  • Tomusange Lasto & Bulega Richard v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 103 of 2015)
  • Seru Bernard v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 0277 of 2009)
  • Aramanani Kampayani v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1987)
  • Mwesigwa Robert v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 0241 of 2019)
  • Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462
  • Aharikundira Yustina Vs. Uganda
  • R v Haviland (1983) 5 Cr App R (S) 109
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.