Wakilii

Bazibu Moses and Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 121 of 2023)

Court of Appeal · [2025] UGCA 252 · 2025 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from High Court conviction and sentence for aggravated robbery
Decision
Appeal dismissed for incompetent grounds; appellants to continue serving the 25-year sentence imposed by the trial court.

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 the respondent's preliminary objection that all seven grounds of appeal offended Rule 66(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules. The grounds were found to be narrative, argumentative and merely repetitive of one another, and ought to have been compressed into a single ground. The Court struck out all the grounds and, finding that the appeal had no standing ground left to support it, dismissed the appeal without considering the substantive complaints on identification, alibi and sentence. The appellants were ordered to continue serving the 25-year sentence imposed by the trial court for aggravated robbery.

Facts

The appellants were convicted by the High Court at Masindi of aggravated robbery contrary to sections 285 and 286(2) of the Penal Code Act. On 29 June 2016 the victim, Odong Walter, withdrew about six million shillings from a bank in Masindi Town. While seeking transport back to Bweyale, the appellants offered him a lift in their car. As they drove out of Masindi they closed the windows and began forcibly taking money from his pockets. When he resisted, they overpowered him, tied a rope around his neck to suffocate him, robbed him of about UGX 6.5 million, bound his arms and legs, blindfolded him and threw him in the bush. The victim freed himself, reached the roadside and reported to police. Prosecution called four witnesses, including the victim. The appellants were convicted on 7 October 2022 and sentenced to 25 years' imprisonment, prompting this appeal on grounds concerning identification, alibi, evidential sufficiency and the severity of sentence.

Issues

  1. Whether the appellants' grounds of appeal offended Rule 66(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules by being narrative, argumentative and repetitive, and should be struck out.
  2. Whether, the grounds having been struck out, the appeal could stand.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The appellants will continue serving their sentence as meted out by the trial court.

Key headnotes

Appeals — Memorandum of Appeal — Form of Grounds under Rule 66(2) Court of Appeal Rules
A memorandum of appeal must set out the grounds of objection concisely under distinct numbered heads, without argument or narrative, specifying the points of law or fact alleged to have been wrongly decided; grounds that are narrative, argumentative or merely repetitive of one another offend Rule 66(2) and may be struck out.
Appeals — Effect of Striking Out All Grounds — Dismissal for Want of Standing
Where every ground of an appeal is struck out for offending the rules of court, the appeal is left with no standing ground to support it and must be dismissed without consideration of the merits.
Appeals — Duty of the First Appellate Court to Re-evaluate Evidence
On a first appeal from a conviction the appellant is entitled to the appellate court's own consideration of the evidence as a whole; the court must re-evaluate the evidence and reach its own conclusions, though it may interfere with findings of fact only where there was no evidence to support them.

Legislation cited (7)

  • Penal Code Act Cap 120 s.285
  • Penal Code Act Cap 120 s.286(2)
  • Evidence Act s.133
  • Court of Appeal Rules rule 66(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeals) Directions SI 13-10 Rule 30(1)
  • Constitution Article 126(1)(e)
  • Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions 2013, Third Schedule

Cases cited (26)

  • Pandya v R [1957] EA 336
  • Okeno v Republic [1972] EA 32
  • Bogere Moses & Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Israel Epulu s/o Achielu (1934) 1 EACA 166
  • Abdullah Bin Wendo & Another v R (1953) 20 EACA 166
  • Roria v Republic [1967] EA 583
  • R v Turnbull [1977] QB 224
  • Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462
  • Sekitoleki v Uganda [1967] EA 531
  • Uganda v Oloya s/o Yovan Oweka [1970] HCB 6
  • Abdallah Nabulere & others vs R
  • Kiwalabye Bernard v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 2001)
  • Aharikundira v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2010)
  • Adama Jino v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 2006)
  • Ouke Sam v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 251 of 2002)
  • Tukamuhebwa David & David Mulodo Yubu v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 59 of 2016)
  • Muchunguzi David & Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 008 of 2008)
  • Naturinda Tamson v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2015)
  • Attorney General v Susan Kigula & 417 Others [2009] UGSC 6
  • Kayanja Hassan v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 206 of 2021)
  • Sseremba v Uganda [2021] UGCA 142
  • Kamukama Moses v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 2002)
  • Kinyera Robert Okidi v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 200 of 2017)
  • Ali Kipanda v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 06 of 2011)
  • Kyalimpa Edward v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1995)
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.