Onen v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 214 of 2024)

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Holding

The Court of Appeal upheld two preliminary objections and struck out the appeal as incompetent. The appellant filed his notice of appeal against a 2018 aggravated-robbery conviction about three years and seven months late without seeking leave to appeal out of time, contrary to section 28 of the Criminal Procedure Code Act; where leave is required and not obtained, the appeal is incompetent. The court further held that grounds one and two offended Rule 66(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules because they failed to specify concisely the points of law or fact faulted. There being no competent appeal, the notice of appeal was struck off and the appellant continues serving his 20-year sentence.

Facts

The appellant was convicted of one count of aggravated robbery by the High Court at Masindi on 24 August 2018 and sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment. He sought to appeal both conviction and sentence. The notice of appeal was presented at Murchison Bay prison on 19 December 2023, received in the prison charge office on 20 December 2023, and lodged in the High Court on 6 April 2024 — about three years and seven months after the judgment. The appellant took no steps to seek leave to file the notice of appeal out of time. The respondent raised two preliminary objections: that the appeal offended section 28 of the Criminal Procedure Code Act for want of leave, and that grounds one and two offended Rule 66(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules by failing to specify concisely the points faulted. The court determined these objections first, as they could dispose of the whole appeal.

Issues

1. Whether the appeal was competent where the appellant filed the notice of appeal out of time without seeking leave to appeal out of time, contrary to section 28 of the Criminal Procedure Code Act.
2. Whether grounds one and two of the appeal offended Rule 66(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules by failing to specify concisely the points of law or fact faulted.

Orders

• The Notice of appeal is struck out for offending Section 28 of the Criminal Procedure Code Act and Rule 66(2) of the Rules of this Court.
• The appeal is struck off the record.
• The appellant will continue serving his sentence.

Key headnotes

Legislation cited (9)

• Penal Code Act (Cap 120) s.285
• Penal Code Act (Cap 120) s.286(2)
• Criminal Procedure Code Act s.28
• Criminal Procedure Code Act s.31
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 5
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 30(1)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 66(2)
• Evidence Act s.99
• Constitution of Uganda Article 23(8)

Cases cited (19)

• Baguma Fred vs Uganda, SCC of 2004
• Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
• Kamya Johnson Wavamuno v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2000)
• Kiwalabye Benard v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 2001)
• Sseremba Dennis v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 480 of 2017)
• Mugerwa John vs Uganda, CACA No. 375 of 2022
• Amis Dhatemwa alias Waibi v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 1997)
• Jagenda John vs Uganda, CACA No. 001 of ...
• Simon Musoke v Uganda (1958) EA 715
• Kyalimpa Edward v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1995)
• Byaruhanga Akot v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 78 of 2010)
• Kasozi Lawrence v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2009)
• Bakubye Muzamiru and another vs Uganda, SCCA No 56 of 2045
• Ojangole Peter v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2017)
• Guloba Rogers v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 2013)
• Basikule Abdu v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 516 of 2017)
• Twesigye Joseph v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 59 of 2014)
• Dr. Sheikh Ahamed Mohammed Kisuule v Green Land Bank (in liquidation) (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2010)
• Makhangu v Kibwana [1995-1998] 1 EA 175