Wakilii

Matata Bwambale alias Ssalongo and 3 Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 248 of 2019)

Court of Appeal · [2023] UGCA 375 · 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
Decision
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence 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

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 the appellants' murder convictions and sentences. Although the trial court omitted to explain the ingredients of the offence before recording the 1st and 2nd appellants' guilty pleas, no failure of justice resulted under s.139 of the Trial on Indictments Act, since the appellants were represented, understood the charge and admitted the facts. An allegation of torture raised only after conviction did not require a trial within a trial, and the confessions were corroborated by video and fingerprint evidence. The deceased recording officer's statement was properly admitted under s.30(b) of the Evidence Act, and the 2022 exhibit-management directions did not apply retrospectively to the 2012 trial. The sentences fell within the guideline range.

Facts

The deceased, Murangira Dennis, a Mbarara hardware businessman, had given over 80 million shillings to A1, a traditional healer (witch doctor), which A1 failed to repay. On 24 July 2012 the deceased received a phone call at home, drove off in his vehicle, and did not return; his body was later found in his car by the roadside at Rubaya. Investigations, traced through phone records, led to the arrest of the appellants. A1 admitted in his charge and caution statement that he had lured the deceased to a water dam at Bwizibwera, where, with A2, A3 and A4 positioned around, he gave the deceased a liquid in a bottle claiming it would multiply his money; the deceased collapsed and died. The men carried the body to the deceased's vehicle and abandoned it, leaving on a motorcycle ridden by A4. Post-mortem and Government Analytical Laboratory analysis found poisoning and a closed head injury. A1 and A2 pleaded guilty and testified for the prosecution; A3 and A4 were convicted on charge and caution statements, a video recording and fingerprint evidence.

Issues

  1. Whether the 1st and 2nd appellants' pleas of guilty were recorded in accordance with the proper procedure, such that their convictions on those pleas occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
  2. Whether the trial Judge irregularly admitted the charge and caution statements of the appellants in convicting the 3rd and 4th appellants, including where torture was alleged and where the statements were tendered other than by their authors.
  3. Whether the video recordings and fingerprint report relied on to convict the 3rd and 4th appellants were improperly admitted.
  4. Whether the appellants were denied effective legal representation at the trial.
  5. Whether the sentences imposed were manifestly harsh and excessive warranting appellate interference.

Orders

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

Key headnotes

Criminal Procedure — Plea of Guilty — Adan v R Procedure — Effect of Non-Compliance
Where a trial court omits part of the plea-taking procedure laid down in Adan v Republic, such as failing to explain the essential ingredients of the offence, a conviction entered on the plea of guilty will not be set aside unless the omission has in fact occasioned a failure of justice within the meaning of s.139 of the Trial on Indictments Act.
Evidence — Confessions — Allegation of Torture Raised After Conviction — Trial Within a Trial
An allegation of torture in respect of a charge and caution statement, raised only after the maker has pleaded guilty, been convicted and sentenced and is testifying as a prosecution witness, does not oblige the court to conduct a trial within a trial, particularly where the confession is corroborated by independent evidence.
Evidence — Statement of Unavailable Witness — Section 30(b) Evidence Act — Proof of Unavailability
A statement may be admitted under s.30(b) of the Evidence Act through a person other than its author only where there is evidence that the author is dead or cannot be procured without unreasonable delay or expense; an unchallenged testimony that the recording officer had died satisfies this requirement.
Evidence — Improper Admission of Evidence — Section 166 Evidence Act — Sufficient Independent Evidence
Under s.166 of the Evidence Act, the improper admission of evidence is not by itself a ground for reversal where, independently of the impugned evidence, there was sufficient evidence to justify the conviction.
Evidence — Practice Directions — Non-Retrospective Application
The Constitution (Management of Exhibits) (Practice) Directions 2022 do not apply retrospectively, and a trial court cannot be faulted for failing to comply with procedural directions that were not in existence at the time of the trial.
Criminal Procedure — Sentencing — Appellate Interference — Consistency and Guideline Range
An appellate court will interfere with a sentence only where it is illegal, based on a wrong principle, or manifestly harsh and excessive; consistency in sentencing is neither a mitigating nor an aggravating factor, and a sentence within the guideline starting-point range for the offence 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
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.28
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.126
  • Evidence Act s.24
  • Evidence Act s.27
  • Evidence Act s.30(b)
  • Evidence Act s.166
  • Identification of Offenders Act Cap 229 s.2(1)
  • Identification of Offenders Act Cap 229 s.4
  • Civil Procedure Act s.88
  • Constitution (Management of Exhibits) (Practice) Directions 2022 Directive 15
  • Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions, Legal Notice No. 8 of 2013, para 6(c) and third schedule item 3
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 r.30(1)(a)
  • Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations 1977 reg.11
  • Electronic Transactions Act 2011

Cases cited (48)

  • Adan v Republic [1973] EA 445
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Tomasi Mufumu v R [1995] EA 625
  • Sebuliba Siraji v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 319 of 2019)
  • Amos Binuge & Ors v Uganda [1991] UGSC 5
  • M'Murari s/o Karegwa v R (1954) 21 EACA 262
  • Mwangi s/o Njerogi v R (1954) 21 EACA 377
  • Dusabe Mashambele Odeta v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 070 of 2016)
  • Joseph Kawooya v Uganda (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)
  • R v Rampling [1987] Crim LR 823
  • Jackson Zita v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 1995)
  • Kyalimpa Edward v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 1995)
  • Livingstone Kakooza v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 1993)
  • Kiwalabye Bernard v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 2001)
  • Naturinda Tamson v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2011)
  • Mbunya Godfrey v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2011)
  • Attorney General v Susan Kigula & Others (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2005)
  • Akbar Hussein Godi v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2013)
  • Atuku Margaret Opii v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 123 of 2008)
  • Kereta Joseph v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 243 of 2013)
  • Uganda v Guster Nsubuga and Robinhood Byamukama (Criminal Appeal No. 92 of 2018)
  • Omaria Chadia v Uganda [2002] UGSC 1
  • Sewankambo Francis v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2001)
  • Hajji Makubo Nakulopa v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2001)
  • Seru Bernard v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 0277 of 2009)
  • Serunkuma Edirisa & Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 0147 of 2015)
  • Andrew Walusimbi and 3 Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 1992)
  • Bakubye Muzamiru and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2015)
  • Okello Geoffrey v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2014)
  • Biryomumaisho Alex v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 464 of 2014)
  • Katureebe Boaz and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 066 of 2011)
  • Kidega Joseph & Anor v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 007 of 2019)
  • Ssemanda Christopher and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 2010)
  • Abaasa Johnson and Another v Uganda [2016] UGCA 71
  • Kalyango Musa, Kamya Edward v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 377 of 2019)
  • Nshaija Abasi alias Rukyeikaire v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 142 of 2021)
  • Mwesigwa Robert v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 0241 of 2019)
  • Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462
  • Tomusange Lasto & Bulega Richard v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 103 of 2015)
  • Aramanani Kampayani v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1987)
  • Associated Architects v Christine Natziwa (Civil Appeal No. 5 of 1981)
  • Muzamin Kisiango & Another v Sam Birabwe (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1980)
  • Aharikundira Yustina Vs. Uganda
  • Ariho Abel v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 024 of 2015)
  • Opolot Justine and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2014)
  • Kaddu Kalure Lawrence v Uganda (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.