Wakilii

Ssalongo Isma Tekigerwa and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 125 of 2019)

Court of Appeal · [2026] UGCA 203 · 2026 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First appeal to the Court of Appeal against conviction and sentence of the High Court for murder and attempted murder.
Decision
Appeal dismissed; conviction and 30-year sentence for murder and 5-year sentences for attempted murder upheld against the second appellant.

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 dismissed the second appellant's appeal against conviction for murder and attempted murder. On voluntariness, the Court held that a confession is admissible under sections 23 and 24 of the Evidence Act only if shown to be voluntary, the burden lying on the prosecution; the trial Judge, after a trial within a trial, properly found that any alleged prior mistreatment did not influence the statement, which was made with an assurance of no further harm. On corroboration, the Court held that while a retracted or repudiated confession must be treated with caution, it was here corroborated in material particulars by independent prosecution and postmortem evidence, and that the appellant's admitted participation founded liability under the doctrine of common intention.

Facts

In the early hours of 23 June 2014, a group of assailants armed with pangas attacked the home of Ssenyondo John at Kisanku village, Rakai District. They killed Kyomuhwezi Stella on the spot and inflicted serious injuries on four other occupants. The appellants were arrested and tried in the High Court, where the second appellant was convicted of murder and attempted murder largely on the basis of a charge and caution statement admitting that he, the first appellant and one Umar invaded the home, that a woman was killed with sharp pangas, and that he injured a person he could not identify. He retracted the statement, alleging it had been extracted through torture. Prosecution witnesses placed the attack and weapons used, and a postmortem report confirmed the fatal injuries. The first appellant died before the appeal, abating his appeal under Rule 71, so the Court heard the appeal of the second appellant only.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial Judge erred in admitting the appellant's charge and caution statement notwithstanding allegations that it was procured through torture.
  2. Whether the conviction could properly be founded on a repudiated charge and caution statement absent independent corroborating evidence.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed for having no merit.
  • Conviction and sentence of the second appellant on all counts upheld.

Key headnotes

Evidence — Confessions — Voluntariness — Burden of proof and trial within a trial
Under sections 23 and 24 of the Evidence Act a confession is admissible only if shown to have been made voluntarily and not through torture, threats, violence or improper influence; where voluntariness is challenged the burden lies on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the statement was voluntary, determined through a trial within a trial.
Evidence — Confessions — Effect of prior mistreatment — Whether effects operative when statement made
A confession made after alleged earlier mistreatment remains voluntary and admissible where the evidence shows the effects of any prior threat or violence had dissipated and the accused had an assurance of no further mistreatment at the time the statement was recorded.
Evidence — Retracted or repudiated confession — Caution and corroboration
A court must act with caution before founding a conviction on a retracted or repudiated confession and must be satisfied in all the circumstances that it is true; although corroboration is not a strict legal requirement, the confession is ordinarily acted upon where corroborated in material particulars by independent evidence.
Criminal Law — Common intention — Liability for acts of accomplices under s.20 Penal Code Act
Where an accused goes to the scene of a crime with others and participates in the unlawful attack, his criminal liability extends to the acts of his accomplices under the doctrine of common intention embodied in section 20 of the Penal Code Act.
Criminal Procedure — First appellate court — Duty to re-evaluate evidence
As a first appellate court, the Court of Appeal has a duty under Rule 30(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules to reconsider and re-evaluate the whole of the evidence before the trial court, making allowance for not having seen the witnesses, and to reach its own conclusion.

Legislation cited (9)

  • Penal Code Act s.188
  • Penal Code Act s.189
  • Penal Code Act s.204
  • Penal Code Act s.20
  • Evidence Act s.23
  • Evidence Act s.24
  • Evidence Act s.25
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 30(1)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 71

Cases cited (6)

  • Arikonjero Dan -v- R (1962) EACA
  • Tuwamoi v Uganda (1967) EA 84
  • R v Manilal Purohit [1949] 9 EACA 58
  • Baguma Fred v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 2004)
  • Matovu Musa Kassim v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2002)
  • Bakubye and Another v Uganda (Civil Appeal No. 56 of 2015)
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.