Wakilii

Aramamani Kampayani v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1987; Criminal Sessions Case No. 700 of 1986)

Supreme Court · [1990] UGSC 43 · 1990 Conviction Quashed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from a High Court conviction for murder and sentence of death.
Decision
Appeal allowed; murder conviction quashed, death sentence set aside, and appellant released.

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 Supreme Court allowed the appeal of a man convicted of murder as an aider and abettor. It held that the trial judge wrongly admitted most prosecution evidence under section 64 of the Trial on Indictment Decree without calling vital, controversial witnesses; that the postmortem report was wrongly admitted under section 30(b) of the Evidence Act and left the cause of death unproved; and that the appellant's extra-judicial statement, relied on as a confession, was admitted without any inquiry into voluntariness and was not in fact a confession. The remaining evidence did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant aided the murder. Conviction quashed; death sentence set aside.

Facts

Bitwire, a Kabale businessman, plotted to kill the deceased, Henry Rusatsi, a fellow businessman, and hired men to do so. The appellant was Bitwire's employed driver. On Bitwire's instructions the appellant fetched a man from Kampala to recruit assassins, and later drove four recruited gunmen to a forest to test-fire pistols supplied by Bitwire. An initial attempt on the deceased's life failed when the guns did not function. On 1 November 1981 the appellant drove Bitwire to visit the deceased; they socialised and later left together, the appellant seeing three men near the gate. Shortly afterwards the deceased was shot by unknown gunmen and died after surgery. The appellant said he acted only as Bitwire's driver, did not know the men or that the deceased would be killed, and feared reporting Bitwire. The trial judge convicted him as an aider and abettor; Bitwire, the principal offender, had earlier been convicted but acquitted on appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether prosecution evidence, including the postmortem report and the statements of key witnesses, was properly admitted under section 64 of the Trial on Indictment Decree 1971 without the witnesses being called to testify.
  2. Whether the postmortem report was properly admitted under section 30(b) of the Evidence Act, and whether the cause of death was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
  3. Whether the appellant's extra-judicial statement was admissible as a confession without a trial within a trial to determine its voluntariness under sections 24 and 25 of the Evidence Act.
  4. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant aided and abetted the murder under section 21(1)(b) of the Penal Code.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Conviction for murder quashed.
  • Sentence of death set aside.
  • Appellant released.

Key headnotes

Criminal Procedure — Admission of agreed facts — Trial on Indictment Decree s.64
Facts agreed at a preliminary hearing under section 64 of the Trial on Indictment Decree should normally be confined to formal or non-contentious evidence; where prosecution witnesses are controversial or vital, they must give oral evidence so that it can be tested in cross-examination.
Statements of absent witnesses — Evidence Act s.30(b) — postmortem report
A document such as a postmortem report may be admitted under section 30(b) of the Evidence Act only where evidence establishes that the maker cannot be found or his attendance procured without unreasonable delay or expense; the section is to be used sparingly.
Murder — Cause of death — Proof beyond reasonable doubt
Where death may be attributable to either the inflicted injury or an intervening surgical operation, the doctors involved should be called to clarify causation; an inadequate postmortem report leaves the cause of death unproved beyond reasonable doubt.
Confessions — Voluntariness — Evidence Act ss.24 & 25
A trial judge must satisfy herself that an alleged confession was made voluntarily before admitting it, even where no trial within a trial is held; failure to do so contravenes the admissibility conditions in sections 24 and 25 of the Evidence Act.
Aiding and abetting — Penal Code s.21(1)(b) — proof of knowing assistance
An employee who carries out errands on his employer's instructions is not guilty as an aider and abettor of murder under section 21(1)(b) of the Penal Code unless the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that he knowingly assisted the killers.

Legislation cited (7)

  • Trial on Indictment Decree 1971 s.64
  • Trial on Indictment Decree 1971 s.63
  • Evidence Act s.30(b)
  • Evidence Act s.24
  • Evidence Act s.25
  • Penal Code Act s.21(1)(b)
  • Penal Code Act s.189

Cases cited (6)

  • Fabiano Olukuudo v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 1977)
  • Associated Architects v Christina Nazziwa (Civil Appeal No. 5 of 1981)
  • Muzmiri Kisiongo and another V Sangu Birabwa Civil 1980
  • Beronda v Uganda [1974] EA 46
  • Yowana Serwadda V Uganda (1978) C.A.U Judgement 128
  • Criminal Appeal No.23 of 1985 (acquittal of Bitwire by this Court on 11/7/1986)
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.