Wakilii

Akandwanaho v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 143 of 2021)

Court of Appeal · [2024] UGCA 215 · 2024 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First criminal appeal from a High Court conviction and sentence for murder
Decision
Appeal dismissed; conviction for murder and sentence of 19 years and one month's 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 a murder conviction. The failure to invite the represented appellant to object to the assessors occasioned no prejudice and was not fatal. The wholly circumstantial evidence — the last-seen doctrine, the appellant's flight from the area, and his proven lies — pointed irresistibly to guilt and was sufficiently corroborated. Although the trial judge wrongly relied on hearsay (an account of what an absent witness, Nuunu, said he heard) so that ground four succeeded, this did not disturb the conviction. The sentence of 19 years and one month, below the guideline range for murder and consistent with sentencing trends, was neither harsh nor excessive.

Facts

On 25 May 2015 the deceased, Byamukama George, drank with the appellant and one Rwamujo at Kitahiira trading centre and the three left together late at night. PW4 saw them together at about 6:30 pm and later, from inside his house, heard Rwamujo and the deceased arguing about which route to take. The deceased never returned home. The following day he was found in a bush, seriously injured with an eye removed and teeth missing, and died at hospital. The appellant and Rwamujo both fled the village soon afterwards; Rwamujo was never found, and the appellant was arrested months later at Bugobe. At trial the appellant denied being present, claimed he was in Kyankwanzi, and said he did not know the area or the prosecution witnesses. The trial judge disbelieved this account, finding that two witnesses knew the appellant as a local resident, and convicted him on the circumstantial evidence.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial was conducted with improperly appointed assessors so as to occasion a miscarriage of justice.
  2. Whether the conviction was based on prosecution evidence marred by contradictions and inconsistencies.
  3. Whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction.
  4. Whether the trial judge wrongly relied on hearsay evidence to convict the appellant.
  5. Whether the sentence of 19 years and one month's imprisonment was manifestly harsh and excessive.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Conviction for murder upheld.
  • Sentence of 19 years and one month's imprisonment upheld.

Key headnotes

Criminal Procedure — Trial on Indictments — Assessors — Opportunity to object
Where an accused person is represented by counsel and does not request an opportunity to object to the appointed assessors, the omission to invite such an objection is not fatal to the proceedings and occasions no miscarriage of justice.
Evidence — Circumstantial Evidence — Inference of guilt
For circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction it must point irresistibly to the guilt of the accused; the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation upon any reasonable hypothesis other than guilt.
Evidence — Circumstantial Evidence — Last-seen doctrine
The last-seen doctrine raises a rebuttable presumption that a person last seen with a deceased bears responsibility for the death and must explain how the deceased met it; but the doctrine alone is insufficient and must be corroborated by other circumstantial evidence.
Evidence — Circumstantial Evidence — Lies and flight as corroboration
Lies told by an accused and his disappearance from the area soon after the commission of an offence may corroborate other circumstantial evidence and support the inference of guilt.
Evidence — Hearsay — Admissibility of indirect oral evidence
Oral evidence must in all cases be direct; a witness's account of what an absent third party said he heard the deceased say is inadmissible hearsay that cannot be tested by cross-examination and ought not to be relied upon to convict.
Evidence — Contradictions and Inconsistencies — Effect on credibility
Major contradictions and inconsistencies in evidence will usually lead to its rejection unless satisfactorily explained, while minor contradictions warrant rejection only where they point to deliberate untruthfulness on the part of the witness.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Sentencing — Appellate interference with sentence
An appellate court will not interfere with a sentence imposed by a trial court in exercise of its discretion unless the sentence is illegal, harsh or manifestly excessive, or there has been a failure to exercise discretion, failure to take into account a material factor, or an error in principle.

Legislation cited (8)

  • Penal Code Act s.188
  • Penal Code Act s.189
  • Trial on Indictments Act s.65
  • Trial on Indictments Act s.66
  • Trial on Indictments Act s.67
  • Evidence Act s.58
  • Evidence Act s.59
  • Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions 2013

Cases cited (24)

  • Pandya v R [1957] EA 336
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda [1998] UGSC 20
  • Ndirangu s/o Nyagu v R (1959) EA 875
  • Byaruhanga Fodori v Uganda [2004] UGSC 24
  • Candiga v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 2012) [2016] UGCA 79
  • Mureeba and Others v Uganda [2006] UGSC 7
  • R v Kipkering Arap Koske and Another (1949) 16 EACA 135
  • Simon Musoke v R (1958) EA 715
  • Tindigwihura Mbahe v Uganda, S.C. Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 1987
  • Tajudeen Iliyasu v The State, SC 247/2013
  • Jogenda v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2011) [2022] UGCA 25
  • Ismcil Vs the Sto'te
  • Birembo Sebastian & Another v Uganda, SCCA No. 20 of 2007
  • Alfred Tajar v Uganda, EACA Criminal Appeal No. 167 of 1969
  • Sarapio Tinkamalirwe v Uganda, Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 1989 (SC)
  • Twinomugisha Alex and 2 Others v Uganda, Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 2010 (SC)
  • Rwabugande Moses v Uganda, Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2014
  • Kyalimpa Edward v Uganda, Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1995
  • Kamya Johnson Wavamuno v Uganda, Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2000
  • Kiwalabye Bernard v Uganda, Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 2001
  • Ogalo s/o Owoura v Republic [1954] 21 EACA 270
  • Aharikundira Yustina v Uganda, Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2015
  • Bakubuye Muzamiru & Another v Uganda, Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2015
  • Florence Abbo v Uganda, 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.