Paul Kayondo and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 1 of 1985)

Supreme Court · [1989] UGSC 2 · 1989 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Criminal appeal from High Court convictions for aggravated robbery

Decision

Appeals dismissed; convictions and sentences upheld

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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 Supreme Court dismissed the appeals against convictions for aggravated robbery. On the deadly-weapon issue, the Court held that although the gun jammed when the appellant tried to fire on the arresting party, it had earlier been fired over a fleeing complainant's head and was found loaded, so it qualified as a deadly weapon under section 273(2) of the Penal Code Act on each count. On identification, the Court, re-evaluating the evidence on first appeal, held that the closely related sequence of events and the consistent eyewitness accounts of the robbed complainants supported accurate identification of the appellants, who admitted presence at the scene and acted in concert. The convictions were properly entered.

Facts

On 20 January 1983, between 6 p.m. and 6.30 p.m., four complainants were ambushed as they crossed a swamp returning from trading at Kanamusaba market with their day's profits. The first appellant pointed a gun and the second brandished a panga. Each complainant was stopped, ordered to lay down his bicycle and throw down his money, then made to lie out of sight in the bushes. One complainant, Jowadu Kimera, used a ruse and ran back to raise the alarm; the first appellant fired the gun over his head but missed. The alarm brought the Gombolola Chief, who collected two groups of men and captured the appellants nearby. When the gun was later pointed at the arresting party it failed to fire, though its magazine was found full of bullets. The complainants identified the appellants after arrest. The appellants admitted being at the scene but claimed they were themselves robbery victims who had been falsely arrested.

Issues

Whether the appellants were identified beyond reasonable doubt as the robbers.
Whether the gun used was a deadly weapon within the meaning of section 273(2) of the Penal Code Act.

Orders

The appeals of each appellant are dismissed.

Key headnotes

Aggravated Robbery — Deadly Weapon — Gun Capable of Being Fired and Loaded

A gun constitutes a deadly weapon within section 273(2) of the Penal Code Act where the prosecution proves it was capable of being fired and was loaded at the time of the robbery; a subsequent failure to fire does not negate its character as a deadly weapon at an earlier stage of the same robbery when it was in fact fired.

Identification — First Appeal — Re-evaluation of Evidence by Appellate Court

On a first appeal the appellate court is under a duty to re-evaluate the evidence for itself; where a closely related sequence of events and consistent eyewitness accounts support identification, and the accused admit presence at the scene, the appellate court may uphold a finding that the accused were accurately identified as the offenders.

Common Intention — Acting in Concert

Where one accused urges another to shoot persons coming to effect arrest while jointly committing a robbery, the accused are shown to be acting in concert and may each be properly convicted of the offence.

Legislation cited (2)

Penal Code Act s.272
Penal Code Act s.273(2)

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.