Wakilii

Tukahirwa Sulaiti v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 353 of 2020)

Court of Appeal · [2026] UGCA 199 · 2026 Preliminary Objection Upheld — Appeal Struck Out ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from High Court conviction for aggravated robbery
Decision
Appeal struck out in its entirety after all grounds were found incompetent under Rule 66(2).

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 respondent raised a preliminary objection that all six grounds of appeal were argumentative and narrative, contrary to Rule 66(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, which requires grounds to be set out concisely, without argument or narrative, challenging a specific holding or finding. The Court agreed, holding that the six grounds were argumentative, evidential and amounted to submissions, and were therefore incompetent. It upheld the objection and struck out all six grounds. As these constituted all the grounds of appeal, no competent appeal remained, and the appeal was struck out in its entirety.

Facts

The appellant was convicted by the High Court at Masaka of aggravated robbery contrary to sections 285 and 286 of the Penal Code Act. The prosecution alleged that on 18 March 2013 at Keishango Village, Lyantonde District, the appellant, while armed with a gun, robbed Kamutunzire Yosam of UGX 105,000 and a Techno mobile phone. He was convicted and sentenced to 30 years' imprisonment and appealed. On the hearing of the appeal, counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection on the form of all six grounds of appeal, contending they were argumentative and narrative and offended Rule 66(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules. The appellant did not submit on the point of law. The Court determined the appeal on this preliminary objection without reaching the merits of the conviction.

Issues

  1. Whether grounds 1 to 6 of the memorandum of appeal were argumentative and narrative and thereby offended Rule 66(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules.
  2. Whether, the grounds being incompetent, any competent appeal remained before the Court.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection upheld.
  • Grounds 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Memorandum of Appeal struck out.
  • Appeal struck out in its entirety.

Key headnotes

Appeals — Memorandum of Appeal — Form of Grounds — Rule 66(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules
A ground of appeal must challenge a specific holding, finding or ratio decidendi of the lower court and must be stated concisely without argument or narrative; a ground that is argumentative, evidential or amounts to submissions offends Rule 66(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules and is incompetent and liable to be struck out.
Appeals — Consequence of Striking Out All Grounds
Where all grounds of appeal are struck out for offending the rules governing the form of grounds, no competent appeal remains before the court and the appeal must be struck out in its entirety.
Appeals — Duty of First Appellate Court
On a first appeal the appellate court is under a duty to review and re-evaluate the evidence on record and reach its own conclusions, bearing in mind that it did not have the opportunity to hear and observe the witnesses testify.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Penal Code Act s.285
  • Penal Code Act s.286
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 66(2)
  • Court of Appeal Rules Rule 30(1)

Cases cited (7)

  • Sseremba Dennis v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 480 of 2017)
  • Ntirenganya Joseph v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 109 of 2017)
  • Pandya v R [1957] EA 335
  • Ruwala v R [1957] EA 570
  • Okethi Okale v Republic [1965] EA 555
  • Bogere Moses v Uganda [1998] UGSC 22
  • National Insurance Corporation v Pelican Air Services (Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2003)
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.