Wakilii

Lwegaba & 4 Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 152 of 2020)

Court of Appeal · [2025] UGCA 3 · 2025 Conviction Upheld; Sentence Reduced ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal against conviction and sentence for murder from the High Court at Mubende
Decision
Convictions for murder confirmed; original sentences of 41 years and 7 months quashed and appellants re-sentenced to 25 years (second appellant) and 30 years (remaining appellants).

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 considered whether it could determine a murder appeal where the trial court's written judgment was missing from the record though the evidence had been fully recorded. Declining to order a retrial, it held that under section 11 of the Judicature Act and Rule 30(1)(a) of the Court of Appeal Rules it could re-appraise the whole of the evidence and reach its own decision. It quashed the original sentences (imposed without a recorded conviction), re-evaluated the evidence including the second appellant's repudiated charge and caution statement and the circumstantial evidence, confirmed each appellant's conviction for murder, and re-sentenced the second appellant to 25 years and the remaining appellants to 30 years' imprisonment.

Facts

The first appellant, father of the deceased Senyondo Emmanuel, had domestic disputes with the deceased's mother after taking other wives, became violent and issued death threats. After a police complaint an agreement was executed for the first appellant to vacate the home; he later sued claiming coercion. He allegedly convened a meeting with the other appellants on 24 December 2014 to plan the killing. On 25 December 2014 the deceased was attacked near his home and cut with pangas, sustaining over eight deep cut wounds to the head and dying of brain damage and acute haemorrhage. The post-mortem confirmed an unlawful death. The second appellant later handed himself to police and gave a charge and caution statement implicating himself and the others, detailing the planning and execution and stating they had been paid by the first appellant; he subsequently repudiated it, alleging he had been bribed and forced to sign. All appellants denied the charge and raised alibis.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court of Appeal can determine an appeal on the basis of the record of proceedings where the written judgment of the trial court is missing from the record.
  2. Whether the proceedings should be reversed and a retrial ordered on account of the missing judgment, or whether the gaps can be remedied by the appellate court re-appraising the evidence.
  3. Whether, on a fresh re-appraisal of the evidence, the prosecution proved the offence of murder against each appellant.
  4. What sentence is appropriate for each appellant.

Orders

  • The sentences of 41 years and 7 months' imprisonment imposed on each appellant are quashed.
  • The conviction of each appellant for the offence of murder is confirmed.
  • The second appellant is sentenced to 25 years' imprisonment, less 3 years and 5 months spent on remand, to serve 21 years and 7 months from 28th May 2017.
  • The first, third, fourth and fifth appellants are each sentenced to 30 years' imprisonment, less 3 years and 5 months spent on remand, to serve 25 years and 7 months from 28th May 2017.

Key headnotes

Criminal Procedure — Appeals — Missing trial judgment — Power of Court of Appeal to re-appraise evidence
Where the trial court's written judgment is missing from the record but the evidence was fully and properly recorded, the Court of Appeal may, under section 11 of the Judicature Act and Rule 30(1)(a) of the Court of Appeal Rules, re-appraise the whole of the evidence and reach its own decision rather than reverse the proceedings and order a retrial.
Criminal Procedure — Retrial — Conditions for ordering a retrial
A retrial should be ordered only where the original trial was null or defective, where the interests of justice require it, where the witnesses who testified remain readily available, and where no injustice will be occasioned to the other party.
Evidence — Confessions — Conviction on a retracted or repudiated confession
A court may convict on a retracted or repudiated confession alone where, after considering all material points and the surrounding circumstances, it is satisfied that the confession cannot but be true; such a confession should be received with caution and is best corroborated, but corroboration is not essential where its character and the circumstances in which it was taken indicate its truth.
Evidence — Circumstantial evidence — Standard for conviction
A conviction may rest on circumstantial evidence only where the inculpatory facts are incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation upon any hypothesis other than that of guilt, so that the evidence points irresistibly to guilt.
Evidence — Defence of alibi — Burden of proof
An accused who raises a defence of alibi bears no burden of proving it; the prosecution must place the accused at the scene of crime as the perpetrator, and the trial court must evaluate both versions of the evidence and give reasons for accepting one and rejecting the other.
Criminal Law — Sentencing — Murder — Sentencing range and consistency
In sentencing for the murder of a single person, the established sentencing range is 20 to 35 years' imprisonment, with a starting point of 35 years under the Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions, 2013, and the principle of consistency requires the court to have regard to sentences in comparable cases.

Legislation cited (10)

  • Penal Code Act s.188
  • Penal Code Act s.189
  • Trial on Indictments Act s.82
  • Trial on Indictments Act s.85
  • Judicature Act s.11
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.30(1)(a)
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.32(1)
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.66(2)
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.74(a)
  • Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions, 2013

Cases cited (18)

  • Mugerwa John v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 375 of 2020)
  • Benjamin Oteka v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 175 of 2018)
  • Ahmed Ali Dharamsi Sumar v R (1964) EA 481
  • Rev. Father Santos Wapokra v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 204 of 2012)
  • Ajay Kumar Ghoshal v State of Bihar & Anr (2017)
  • Aluelo Mike v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 823 of 2014)
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda [1998] UGSC 20
  • Mureeba Janet v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2003)
  • Musoke v Uganda (1958) EA 115
  • Matovu Musa Kassim v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2002)
  • Tuwamoi v Uganda [1967] EA 84
  • Sekitoleko v Uganda [1967] EA 531
  • Bogere Moses v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Kiiza Swaibu v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 204 of 2015)
  • Musiita & Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 254 of 2021)
  • Florence Abbo v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 455 of 2015)
  • Aharikundira Yustina v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2015)
  • Muhwezi v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 198 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.