Wakilii

Nyendwoha Fenekansi and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 2022)

Court of Appeal · [2023] UGCA 406 · 2023 Preliminary Objection Upheld — Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from High Court conviction for murder
Decision
Appeal dismissed after the sole ground of appeal was struck out for offending Rule 66(2); conviction and sentence stand.

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 upheld a preliminary objection that the appellants' sole ground of appeal was framed in an omnibus manner and offended Rule 66(2) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions, because it failed to set forth concisely the points of law, fact, or mixed law and fact alleged to have been wrongly decided. Having struck out the only ground on this procedural basis, and there being no other ground, the Court dismissed the appeal without re-evaluating the merits of the murder conviction.

Facts

The appellants were indicted and convicted of murder contrary to sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act. It was alleged that on 2 December 2014 at Kitale Village, Hoima District, they unlawfully caused the death of Kiiza Robert. The prosecution case rested on circumstantial evidence: PW1 saw the first appellant fighting with the deceased near a bar, and PW2, with the aid of solar light from his veranda, saw both appellants chase the fleeing deceased between 8:00 and 8:30 pm, the second appellant carrying a stick. No witness directly saw the killing. The deceased was later found lying unconscious. The High Court at Masindi convicted both appellants and sentenced them to 30 years' imprisonment after a full trial. The appellants appealed on a single ground alleging the trial Judge failed to properly evaluate the evidence.

Issues

  1. Whether the sole ground of appeal complied with Rule 66(2) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions requiring grounds to be stated concisely and to specify the points of law, fact, or mixed law and fact appealed against.
  2. Whether the trial Judge erred in failing to properly evaluate the evidence on record in convicting the appellants of murder.

Orders

  • The ground of appeal is struck out.
  • The appeal is dismissed.

Key headnotes

Criminal Appeals — Memorandum of Appeal — Omnibus Grounds — Rule 66(2) Court of Appeal Rules
A ground of appeal framed in an omnibus manner that fails to set forth concisely the grounds of objection and to specify the points of law, fact, or mixed law and fact alleged to have been wrongly decided offends Rule 66(2) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions and is liable to be struck out.
Appeals — Effect of Striking Out Sole Ground — Dismissal Without Consideration of Merits
Where the only ground of appeal is struck out for non-compliance with the rules, there being no other ground before the court, the appeal must be dismissed without further consideration of its merits.
Circumstantial Evidence — Inculpatory Facts Incompatible with Innocence
In a case depending exclusively on circumstantial evidence, the court must, before convicting, find that the inculpatory facts are incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis, with the circumstances pointing irresistibly to guilt.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Penal Code Act, Cap 120 (now Cap 128) s.188
  • Penal Code Act, Cap 120 (now Cap 128) s.189
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions, SI 13-10, Rule 66(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeals) Directions, 2005, Rule 30(1)

Cases cited (11)

  • Bogere Moses v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Okethi Okale vs Republic [1965] EA 555
  • Pandya vs R (1957) EA 335
  • Hussein Godi v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2013)
  • Janet Mureeba and 2 Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2003)
  • Kifamunte v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • [1998] UGSC 20
  • Bogere Charles vs Uganda(supra)
  • Simon Musoke vs R (1956) EA 715
  • Ntirenganya Joseph v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 109 of 2017)
  • Sseremba Denis v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 480 of 2017)
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.