Wakilii

Nyakaishiki & 3 Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 199 of 2015)

Court of Appeal · [2024] UGCA 210 · 2024 Appeal Partly Allowed — Sentence Reduced ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from High Court conviction and sentence for murder
Decision
Convictions for murder upheld; 45-year sentences set aside and each appellant re-sentenced to 35 years' imprisonment (40 years less 5 years on remand) from the date of conviction.

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 conviction, holding that the appellants' retracted and repudiated confessions were properly admitted after a trial within a trial established they were voluntary, and were mutually corroborative such that they could only have been made by participants in the murder; under s.27 of the Evidence Act the confessions could also be used against the co-accused. The appeal against sentence was allowed because the trial judge's order was ambiguous as to whether the remand period had been deducted and failed to weigh mitigating factors against aggravating ones. Re-sentencing the appellants, the Court fixed 40 years, deducted the 5 years on remand, and imposed 35 years' imprisonment.

Facts

On the night of 8 June 2010 the deceased, his wife (the 1st appellant) and a housemaid were asleep when two men entered the home. They tied up the wife and housemaid, demanded money, and after the deceased gave 20,000/=, demanded more. The assailants then killed the deceased, inflicting bruises to the neck, a cut wound to the arm, and severing his genitals, before fleeing. The wife claimed the assailants used a large stone to force the door, but police found the door intact with no marks of forced entry. The deceased's son (2nd appellant) went into hiding, was pursued and arrested, admitted the offence and implicated the 1st, 3rd and 4th appellants. Charge and caution statements of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd appellants described a plan, hatched among them, to kill the deceased over family property disputes, including cutting off his genitals for rituals.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial judge erred in convicting the appellants while relying on their repudiated and retracted confessions.
  2. Whether the prosecution proved a common intention to murder the deceased in the absence of an eyewitness.
  3. Whether the sentence of 45 years' imprisonment was harsh and excessive, and whether the trial judge took the period spent on remand into account.

Orders

  • The appeal against conviction is dismissed.
  • The appeal against sentence is allowed.
  • The sentence of the trial court is set aside.
  • A sentence of 40 years' imprisonment is considered appropriate for each appellant; after deducting the 5 years spent on remand, each appellant is sentenced to 35 years' imprisonment, to be served from the date of conviction (08.06.15).

Key headnotes

Evidence — Confessions — Retracted and Repudiated Confessions — Need for Corroboration
A retracted or repudiated confession may ground a conviction where, following a trial within a trial, the court is satisfied it was voluntarily made and, as a matter of prudence, finds it corroborated in a material particular or is fully satisfied that the confession must be true.
Evidence — Confessions of a Co-accused — Section 27 Evidence Act
Where more than one person is tried for the same offence, a confession made by one of them affecting himself and the others may be taken into consideration by the court against both the maker and the co-accused implicated by it.
Sentencing — Remand Period — Article 23(8) of the Constitution
A sentencing court must clearly demonstrate that it has taken the period spent on remand into account to the convict's credit; where the sentencing order is ambiguous as to whether the remand period was deducted, an appellate court may interfere and re-sentence.
Sentencing — Failure to Weigh Mitigating Against Aggravating Factors
A sentencing court must consider mitigating factors alongside aggravating factors; considering the aggravating factors in isolation of the mitigating factors vitiates the sentence and justifies appellate interference.

Legislation cited (7)

  • Penal Code Act s.188
  • Penal Code Act s.189
  • Evidence Act s.27
  • Judicature Act s.11
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 23(8)
  • Rules of the Court of Appeal Rule 30(1)(a)
  • Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) Practice Directions 2013, Legal Notice No.8 of 2013, Sentencing Principle No.6(c)

Cases cited (8)

  • Pandya v R [1957] EA 336
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Tuwamoi v Uganda [1967] EA 84
  • Rwabugande Moses v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2014)
  • Abelle Asuman v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 66 of 2016)
  • Aharikundira Yustina v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2015)
  • Bakubuye Muzamiru & another v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2015)
  • Florence Abbo v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 168 of 2013)
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.