Wakilii

Amos Binuge and Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 23 of 1989)

Supreme Court · [1991] UGSC 5 · 1991 Appeal Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from High Court convictions for murder and aggravated robbery, against conviction only
Decision
Convictions quashed and sentences set aside; case remitted to the High Court for retrial before another judge

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 1 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 allowed the appeal against convictions for murder and aggravated robbery. It held that the trial judge erred by summarily rejecting the first appellant's objection to his extra-judicial statement and admitting it without holding a trial within a trial, allowing himself and the assessors to peruse an unproven confession and thereby ruining the trial as against the first appellant. The trial judge also failed to consider common intention and the significance of stolen property found with an appellant, indicating he had made up his mind early. The State did not support the convictions. The convictions were quashed, the death sentences set aside, and a retrial before another judge ordered.

Facts

Three appellants and a co-accused, Alfred Sabiiti, were jointly indicted for the murder of Josephat Mugisa and aggravated robbery of his property. After a trial exceeding ten days in the High Court at Hoima, the three appellants were convicted on both counts and sentenced to death on each; Sabiiti was acquitted at the close of the prosecution case for having no case to answer. At trial, the prosecution tendered the first appellant's extra-judicial statement, recorded by Police Inspector Bikanga. Defence counsel objected that the statement had not been made voluntarily, but the trial judge summarily rejected the objection without holding a trial within a trial, and the statement was admitted and read by the judge and assessors. Many items of property allegedly stolen during the robbery were found with one of the appellants. The appellants appealed against conviction only.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial judge erred in admitting the first appellant's contested extra-judicial statement without holding a trial within a trial.
  2. Whether the trial judge erred in failing to consider the question of common intention.
  3. Whether the convictions could be sustained in the circumstances.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Convictions quashed.
  • Sentences set aside.
  • Case to be retried by another Judge.

Key headnotes

Evidence — Confessions — Trial within a Trial — Challenge to Voluntariness
Where the admissibility of an extra-judicial statement is challenged on the ground that it was not made voluntarily, the objecting accused must be given the opportunity to establish his grounds of objection by evidence through a trial within a trial.
Evidence — Confessions — Determining Voluntariness
A trial judge or magistrate cannot conclude that a statement was made voluntarily merely by perusing it; the question whether a confession should be admitted must be decided upon the evidence of both sides.
Criminal Procedure — Effect of Improperly Admitted Confession
Where the trial judge and assessors peruse a contested confession that has not been proved, the trial is vitiated as against the accused who made the statement.
Criminal Law — Joint Trial — Common Intention
In a joint trial the court must consider the question of common intention, and a failure to address it amounts to a misdirection.
Criminal Procedure — Sentencing — Multiple Counts Carrying the Death Sentence
Where an accused is convicted on more than one count each carrying the death sentence, the proper course is for the trial judge to pass the death sentence on all counts but to suspend them except on one count.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Trial on Indictments Decree s.80

Cases cited (4)

  • Moses Kalyowa and 3 Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 1985)
  • Kinyori s/o Karuditu (1956) 23 EACA 480
  • M'Murari s/o Karegwa v R (1954) 21 EACA 262
  • Mwangi s/o Njerogi v R (1954) 21 EACA 377
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.