Kabwiso Issa v Uganda [2003] UGSC 36

Supreme Court · 2003 Appeal Partly Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Second criminal appeal from the Court of Appeal, which had confirmed a High Court conviction for defilement

Decision

Conviction for defilement upheld; sentence reduced from 15 to 10 years' imprisonment running from 29 September 2000

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

On a second appeal against a defilement conviction, the Supreme Court held that section 25 of the Evidence Act renders a confession irrelevant only where it is caused by violence, threats, inducement or promise; the appellant's voluntary verbal confession to the victim's father was therefore admissible and could corroborate the complainant's testimony, so the conviction stood. However, the sentence was unlawful: the trial judge's ambiguous statement that the remand period would be "taken into account against the whole sentence" did not comply with Article 23(8) of the Constitution, which requires the remand period to be considered specifically with other factors before pronouncing the term. The 15-year sentence was set aside and a 10-year term substituted, with guidelines issued to trial courts.

Facts

The appellant was employed as a herdsman in the home of PW3, the father of the victim, Bazara Suzan, a girl under 18. On 9 December 1995 PW3 sent Bazara to accompany the appellant to graze cattle in a swamp some six miles away. There the appellant teased Bazara, struck her, threw her to the ground and defiled her. She bled, cried out, and ran home to report to her father. PW3 and a neighbour returned with Bazara to the scene and found the appellant nearby; when confronted he denied the act, then fled, abandoning the cattle. They observed fresh blood stains at the scene. That evening the appellant returned to PW3's home and apologised for having defiled Bazara. Medical examination confirmed the defilement. The appellant was charged, gave an unsworn statement claiming PW3 had fabricated the case over unpaid wages, was convicted by the High Court and sentenced to 15 years; the Court of Appeal confirmed the conviction and sentence.

Issues

Whether the appellant's verbal confession to the complainant's father was inadmissible under section 25 of the Evidence Act and incapable of corroborating the conviction.
Whether the sentence of 15 years' imprisonment was unlawful for failing to take the period spent on remand into account as required by Article 23(8) of the Constitution.

Orders

The appeal against conviction is dismissed.
The appeal against sentence is allowed.
The sentence of 15 years' imprisonment imposed by the trial judge is set aside.
A sentence of 10 years' imprisonment is substituted, to run from 29 September 2000.
This judgment is to be circulated to all courts, prosecutors and prison authorities for guidance on stating sentences.

Key headnotes

Evidence — Confessions — Section 25 of the Evidence Act — Voluntary confession to a private person

Under section 25 of the Evidence Act a confession is irrelevant only where it appears to have been caused by violence, force, threats, inducement or promise calculated to produce an untrue confession; a voluntary verbal confession made by an accused to a private person, such as the victim's parent, is admissible and may be treated as evidence corroborating the complainant's testimony.

Criminal Procedure — Sentencing — Article 23(8) of the Constitution — Treatment of period spent on remand

Article 23(8) of the Constitution requires that the period an accused has spent in lawful custody before completion of trial be taken into account specifically, along with other relevant factors, before the court pronounces the term to be served; a sentence framed so that the remand period is "taken into account against the whole sentence" is ambiguous and unlawful.

Evidence — Conduct of the accused — Flight from the scene as conduct inconsistent with innocence

An accused's flight from the scene of the crime when confronted with the complaint may be treated as conduct inconsistent with innocence and may support the conviction.

Criminal Procedure — Sentencing — Guidelines for recording the remand deduction

When sentencing to imprisonment, a trial judge or magistrate should expressly state the period the accused has already spent on remand and then pronounce a definite term to be served, that term being treated as excluding the period spent in custody on remand.

Legislation cited (4)

Penal Code Act s.123(1)
Evidence Act s.25
Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 23(8)
Rules of the Supreme Court of Uganda r.81(1)

Cases cited (1)

Kataiha Deo v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 129 of 2001)

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.