Nyendwoha Fenekansi and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 143 of 2022)

Court of Appeal · [2025] UGCA 182 · 2025 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

First criminal appeal from a High Court murder conviction and 30-year sentence

Decision

Appeal dismissed; sole ground struck out for offending Rule 66(2); murder conviction and 30-year sentence stand

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this 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 respondent raised a preliminary objection that the appellants' sole ground of appeal — that the trial judge failed to properly evaluate the evidence — was framed in an omnibus manner and offended Rule 66(2) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions, which requires grounds to concisely specify the points of law or fact alleged to have been wrongly decided. The Court agreed, holding the ground did not state any specific point of objection. It upheld the preliminary objection, struck out the ground of appeal, and, there being no other ground, dismissed the appeal without reaching the merits of the murder conviction.

Facts

The appellants were indicted for the murder of Kiiza Robert, allegedly committed on 2 December 2014 at Kitale Village, Hoima District. After a full trial in the High Court at Masindi, they were convicted of murder under sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act and sentenced to 30 years' imprisonment. The prosecution case rested largely on circumstantial evidence: PW1 testified to a fight between the first appellant and the deceased, and PW2 testified that, with the aid of solar light, he saw both appellants chase the deceased between 8:00 and 8:30 pm, one carrying a stick, shortly before the deceased was found lying unconscious. The appellants appealed on a single ground that the trial judge failed to properly evaluate this evidence and wrongly concluded that they killed the deceased.

Issues

Whether the sole ground of appeal, framed in an omnibus manner, complied with Rule 66(2) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions in specifying the points of law or fact appealed against.

Orders

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

Key headnotes

Criminal Appeals — Memorandum of Appeal — Omnibus Grounds — Rule 66(2) Compliance

A ground of appeal framed in an omnibus manner, which merely alleges that the trial judge failed to properly evaluate the evidence without concisely specifying the particular points of law or 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.

Criminal Appeals — Effect of Striking Out the Sole Ground of Appeal

Where the only ground of appeal is struck out for non-compliance with the rules, there remains no ground for the court to determine and the appeal must be dismissed.

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 r.66(2)
Judicature (Court of Appeals) Directions 2005 r.30(1)

Cases cited (10)

Bogere Moses v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
Okethi Okale v Republic [1965] EA 555
Pandya v 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)
Henry Kifamunte v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
Bogere Charles vs Uganda (supra)
Simon Musoke v R (1956) EA 715
Ntirenganya Joseph v Uganda (Court of 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.