Wakilii

Sekitoleko & 2 Ors v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 33 of 2014)

Supreme Court · [2017] UGSC 76 · 2017 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second criminal appeal from the Court of Appeal against conviction and sentence for murder
Decision
Appeal dismissed; convictions and 28-year sentences confirmed.

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 dismissed the appeal against conviction and sentence for murder. It held that, although the charge and caution statements of the first and second appellants were recorded by the same police officer, the case was distinguishable from Sewankambo because the statements were taken three days apart and in the appellants' own language, so there was no prejudice. A retracted or repudiated confession may found a conviction without corroboration where the court is satisfied it must be true, and here the confessions were corroborated and established a common intention to kill. On sentence, the Court held that under s.5(3) of the Judicature Act it has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal merely against severity of sentence, and found no illegality or manifest excess warranting interference.

Facts

The first and third appellants were siblings of the deceased and had a land dispute and a witchcraft grudge with him. They planned to kill the deceased and hired the second appellant to carry it out, promising him UGX 600,000. The second appellant went to the deceased's home posing as a land buyer, left to drink with the deceased, and returned at night carrying a polythene bag; the two slept on the same bed. The next morning the deceased was found with a crushed skull and later died; a post-mortem attributed death to brain contusion, haemorrhage and shock from a blunt weapon. The second appellant was arrested nearby in possession of a hammer (later found to bear blood) and the deceased's shoes. The first and second appellants made charge and caution statements confessing to the plan and killing, which they later retracted and repudiated. After a trial within a trial the High Court admitted the statements, convicted all three of murder and sentenced each to 28 years; the Court of Appeal confirmed the decision.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the conviction on the basis of charge and caution statements that were recorded by the same police officer and were uncorroborated.
  2. Whether the lower courts erred in finding that the appellants had a common intention and were joint offenders in the murder.
  3. Whether the Supreme Court could interfere with the 28-year sentence on the ground that it was manifestly excessive.

Orders

  • The appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed.
  • The conviction and the sentence of 28 years imprisonment for each appellant are confirmed.

Key headnotes

Criminal Evidence — Confessions — Charge and Caution Statements Recorded by the Same Officer
The recording of confession statements from two co-accused by the same police officer is irregular, but does not render the statements inadmissible or prejudicial where they were recorded several days apart and in a language the accused understood, so that the officer could not have used one statement to fabricate the other.
Criminal Evidence — Confessions — Voluntariness — Trial Within a Trial
Where an accused objects to the admissibility of a confession on the ground that it was not made voluntarily, the court must hold a trial within a trial, and the onus lies on the prosecution to prove the confession was made voluntarily, not on the accused to prove it was caused by violence, force, threat, inducement or promise.
Criminal Evidence — Retracted and Repudiated Confessions — Corroboration
A court may convict on a retracted or repudiated confession alone, without corroboration, where it is fully satisfied after considering all material factors and surrounding circumstances of the case that the confession cannot be but true.
Criminal Law — Common Intention — Joint Offenders
Where several persons combine for the same unlawful purpose, an act done by one of them in pursuance of the common plan is in law the act of all, and each becomes a principal offender liable for the killing carried out in execution of the shared intention.
Criminal Procedure — Appeals — Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court Over Severity of Sentence
Under section 5(3) of the Judicature Act, an appeal to the Supreme Court against a sentence not fixed by law lies only on a matter of law and not on the severity of the sentence, so the Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with a sentence unless it is illegal or manifestly excessive so as to amount to an injustice.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Penal Code Act s.188
  • Penal Code Act s.189
  • Penal Code Act s.20
  • Evidence Act s.24
  • Judicature Act s.5(3)

Cases cited (10)

  • Sewankambo Francis v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2001)
  • Tuwamoi v Uganda (1967) EA 84
  • Walugembe v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 2003)
  • Rashidi v Republic (1969) EA 138
  • Matovu Musa Kassim v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2002)
  • Charles Komwiswa v Uganda [1979] HCB 86
  • Kyalimpa Edward v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1995)
  • R v De Haviland (1983) 5 Cr App R(S) 109
  • Ogalo s/o Owura v R (1954) 21 EACA 270
  • R v Mohamedali Jamal (1948) 15 EACA 126
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.