Wakilii

Chris Rwakasisi,Elias Wanyama v Uganda [1991] UGSC 2

Supreme Court · 1991 Appeals Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal against conviction and sentence of the High Court at Mbarara
Decision
Both appellants' appeals dismissed by majority and the death sentences upheld, save that the first appellant's conviction on count 13 was quashed.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full 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 Court, by majority, dismissed both appeals. On the first appellant, it held that the forcible seizing and carrying away of the victims amounted to kidnapping with intent to murder under section 235(1)(a), and that the requisite contemporaneous intent that the victims may be murdered could be inferred from the circumstances of arrest and subsequent events; the accomplice evidence of Katabazi was rightly corroborated. His conviction was upheld on counts 8, 9, 11, 12 and 14 but quashed on count 13 for want of evidence. On the second appellant, the majority upheld the murder convictions, holding the alibi disproved and identification sufficient; Seaton J.S.C. dissented, considering the identification unsafe.

Facts

In May 1981, during the second Obote government, the first appellant Rwakasisi, a Minister of State in the President's office, was alleged to have convened a meeting at Nile Mansions, Kampala, and ordered security officers to arrest suspected guerillas in his home area of Mbarara. Seven victims were forcibly seized from their homes on or about 15-19 May 1981, their property looted, taken to Mbarara Police Station, then to Nile Mansions where they were interrogated in Room 223, and finally to Kireka Barracks where they were killed. The second appellant Wanyama was alleged to be an intelligence officer at Nile Mansions who was present at and participated in the killings at Kireka. The prosecution relied heavily on the accomplice evidence of Katabazi (PW23), a soldier who participated in the arrests, and on the eyewitnesses Lwanga (PW22) and Muhanguzi (PW20). Rwakasisi denied ordering the arrests or being in charge of security; Wanyama raised an alibi that he was in Bushenyi on communications duties. The High Court convicted Rwakasisi on five counts of kidnapping with intent to murder and Wanyama on six counts of murder, sentencing both to death.

Issues

  1. Whether the seizing and carrying away of the victims amounted to the offence of kidnapping with intent to murder under section 235(1)(a) of the Penal Code, and in particular whether the contemporaneous intent that the victims may be murdered was proved.
  2. Whether the first appellant procured the arrests of the victims.
  3. Whether the trial judge correctly treated the evidence of the accomplice witness Katabazi (PW23) and found sufficient corroboration of it.
  4. Whether the second appellant's alibi was disproved and whether the evidence of his identification at the scene of the killings was safe to support a conviction for murder.

Orders

  • By a majority of two to one, the appeal of the first appellant, Rwakasisi, is dismissed on counts 8, 9, 11, 12 and 14.
  • The first appellant's conviction on count 13 (relating to the victim Muhumuza) is set aside.
  • By a majority of two to one, the appeal of the second appellant, Wanyama, is dismissed.

Key headnotes

Criminal Law & Procedure — Kidnapping with Intent to Murder — Elements of the Offence (Penal Code s.235(1)(a))
The offence of kidnapping with intent to murder requires the seizing and carrying away of a person by force against his will accompanied by a contemporaneous intent that the victim may be murdered; the seizure, the compelling to go away, and the intent must coincide, and a subsequently conceived intention will not suffice.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Kidnapping with Intent to Murder — Inference of Intent from Surrounding Circumstances
Although the intent that the victim may be murdered must exist at the time of seizure, that intent may be inferred from the circumstances of the arrest and from subsequent events which throw light on the intention of the person making or ordering the arrest.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Arrest — Distinguishing a Lawful Arrest from Kidnapping
The legality of an arrest — the authority under which it was made, whether reasons were given to the person arrested, and whether excessive violence or abuse was used — is one of the circumstances from which the court may draw inferences as to the intention of the person ordering the arrest.
Evidence — Accomplice Evidence — Need for Corroboration
The evidence of an accomplice requires corroboration before it can be acted upon; a witness who participates in the seizure of victims and knows the fate that awaits them is an accomplice whose evidence must be corroborated.
Evidence — Witness Credibility — Discrepancies between Testimony, Police Statement and Summary of Evidence
Discrepancies between a witness's testimony in court and the summary of evidence prepared by a State Attorney do not render the witness a liar, since the summary may contain the State Attorney's errors; what must be considered with care is whether the court testimony differs in any important aspect from the witness's own police statement.
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 reasonable hypothesis other than guilt, and there are no co-existing circumstances which would weaken or destroy that inference.
Evidence — Identification — Unfavourable Conditions and Risk of Honest Mistake
Where identification is made at night, from a distance and through a restricted vantage point, a court should consider whether an honest witness might be mistaken before founding a conviction on it; on a first appeal the appellate court may form its own impression of such evidence.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Penal Code Act (Cap. 106) s.183
  • Penal Code Act (Cap. 106) s.235(1)(a)
  • Police Act

Cases cited (10)

  • Kimeze and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1979)
  • Major John Oringa v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 1986)
  • Kadiri Matovu v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 1983)
  • Paddy Kalenzi v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 1988)
  • Davies v Director of Public Prosecutions [1954] 1 All E.R. 507 (HL)
  • Jethwa v. Anor & Rep. (1969) EACA 459
  • Githaie v R (1956) 23 EACA 440
  • Uganda v. Leubeni Kasisi H.C.B. P.91
  • Mohamed Tahi v. R. (1961) EACA 206
  • Uganda vs. Lote Joseph (1978) Vol. 10 HB p. 270
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.