Wakilii

Okiru v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 97 of 2018)

Court of Appeal · [2023] UGCA 333 · 2023 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First appeal to the Court of Appeal against conviction and sentence on a charge of murder by the High Court at Mbale
Decision
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence of 36 years, 2 months and 15 days' imprisonment 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 the appeal against conviction and sentence for murder. It held the appellant's retracted confession was voluntarily recorded — his own evidence about the alleged torture was contradictory and could not attribute force to the recording officer — and was corroborated by his unusual conduct, which placed him at the scene and displaced his alibi. On sentence, the Court found the trial judge had weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors, and that 36 years, 2 months and 15 days' imprisonment was neither harsh nor excessive when measured against comparable ritual child-sacrifice killings. The conviction and sentence were upheld.

Facts

The appellant married Josephine Amachar, with whom he had two children, and continued caring for them after the couple separated. On the night of 23 October 2014 at Bukhalamya Village, Manafwa District, the appellant took his youngest child, the deceased, to Nandelema stream where he strangled the child and drowned him, in the belief that sacrificing his own child would bring him wealth. The next day, when relatives asked about the child, the appellant responded with indifference. An alarm drew the community to the stream, where the infant's body was found floating; the appellant collapsed on seeing it. Residents attempted to lynch him before LC1 leaders rescued him and took him to Butiru Police Post. On interrogation he admitted the offence, and a charge-and-caution statement containing details only he could have known was recorded. He was indicted, tried and convicted of murder and sentenced to 36 years, 2 months and 15 days' imprisonment.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial judge erred in relying on prosecution evidence said to be marred by contradictions and inconsistencies, in particular a retracted confession.
  2. Whether the trial judge erred in rejecting the appellant's defence of alibi.
  3. Whether the sentence of 36 years, 2 months and 15 days' imprisonment was harsh and excessive in light of the mitigating factors.

Orders

  • The appeal against sentence is not allowed.
  • The conviction is upheld.
  • The sentence is upheld.
  • The appeal is dismissed for lack of merit.

Key headnotes

Evidence — Confessions — Retracted Confession — Requirement of Corroboration and Truth
A trial court may found a conviction on a retracted or repudiated confession where, after exercising extreme caution, it is fully satisfied in all the circumstances that the confession is true and it is corroborated by other evidence.
Evidence — Confessions — Trial Within a Trial — Voluntariness
Where an accused alleges that a statement was extracted by force or threat, contradictory evidence that fails to attribute the violence to the officer who recorded the statement does not render the statement involuntary, and the statement is properly admitted.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Murder — Proof of Participation — Conduct as Corroboration
The conduct and demeanour of an accused that are inconsistent with innocence may corroborate a confession and, taken together, support an inference placing the accused at the scene of the crime.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Defences — Alibi — Displacement by Prosecution Evidence
The burden to place the accused at the scene of crime remains with the prosecution, but once its evidence squarely places the accused at the scene the defence of alibi is displaced and properly rejected.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Sentencing — Appellate Interference with Discretion
An appellate court will not interfere with a sentence imposed by the trial court in exercise of its discretion unless the sentence is manifestly excessive or so low as to amount to a miscarriage of justice.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Sentencing — Consistency in Similar Offences
In sentencing there must be consistency of sentences in offences of a similar nature committed in similar circumstances, and the rights of the victim and the public interest must be weighed alongside those of the offender.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Appeals — Formulation of Grounds of Appeal
Under Rule 86 of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions, the arguments advanced in support of a ground of appeal must relate to the manner in which that ground is formulated.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Penal Code Act Cap 120 s.188
  • Penal Code Act Cap 120 s.189
  • Evidence Act s.23
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 86
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 126(1)

Cases cited (13)

  • Muligande Zyedi v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 2013)
  • Mumbere Julius v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2014)
  • Pandya v R [1957] EA 336
  • Selle and Another v Associated Motorboat Company [1968] EA 123
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Kiwalabye Benard v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 142 of 2001)
  • Kato Kajubi v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2014)
  • Aharikundira Yusitina v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2015)
  • Busiku Thomas v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2011)
  • S v Jaipal 2005 (4) SA 581 (CC)
  • Rwalinda John v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2015)
  • Tomusange Lasto and Bulega Richard v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 103 of 2015)
  • Okwong Mungu Ronald v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 112 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.