Wakilii

Ssemanda & Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 28 of 2014)

Supreme Court · [2018] UGSC 100 · 2018 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second criminal appeal against sentence from a Court of Appeal decision upholding a High Court murder sentence.
Decision
Appeal dismissed as incompetent; Court of Appeal decision upheld; appellants to continue serving their 35-year sentences.

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 appellants, convicted of murder and each sentenced to 35 years' imprisonment, appealed to the Supreme Court contending that the Court of Appeal had failed to re-appraise the evidence on sentence. The Court held that this was a new complaint never raised before, or determined by, the Court of Appeal; on a second appeal an appellant cannot raise matters not considered by the trial and first appellate courts. The ground was therefore incompetent and was dismissed. The Court of Appeal's decision upholding the 35-year sentences was upheld and the appellants were to continue serving their sentences.

Facts

The two appellants were convicted of murder by the High Court and each sentenced to 35 years' imprisonment. In passing sentence the trial judge considered mitigating factors, including the appellants' youth and the time they had spent on remand, and aggravating factors, including the violence inflicted on the victim, whose arm was broken and whose head was struck before he died in hospital. The judge declined to impose the death penalty, noting the appellants were young men who could reform, but directed that they serve the largest part of their sentence. The appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal on the single ground that the sentence was harsh and excessive; the Court of Appeal found the trial judge had weighed all mitigating and aggravating factors and upheld the sentence. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court on a fresh ground, contending the Court of Appeal had failed to adequately re-appraise the evidence on sentence.

Issues

  1. Whether it is proper for an appellant to raise on a second appeal to the Supreme Court a ground that was never raised or considered by the Court of Appeal.
  2. Whether the Court of Appeal failed to adequately re-appraise the evidence regarding sentence and thereby upheld an erroneous sentence.

Orders

  • The ground of appeal is dismissed for being incompetent.
  • The decision of the Court of Appeal is upheld.
  • The appellants shall continue to serve their sentences.

Key headnotes

Appeals — New Grounds on Second Appeal — Competence
On a second appeal to the Supreme Court an appellant cannot raise a ground that was never raised before, or determined by, the Court of Appeal; such a ground is incompetent and will be dismissed.
Appeals — Second Appellate Court — Re-evaluation of Evidence
Except in the clearest of cases, a second appellate court is not required to re-evaluate the evidence in the manner of a first appellate court.
Sentencing — Appellate Interference with Trial Court's Discretion
An appellate court will not interfere with a sentence imposed in the exercise of the trial court's discretion unless the sentence is illegal or manifestly excessive, results in a miscarriage of justice, or where the trial court ignored a material factor or acted on wrong principles; it will not alter a sentence merely because it would itself have passed a different one.

Cases cited (8)

  • Kagunda Fred v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 1998)
  • Kifamunte H. v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Bogere Moses and Kamba R. v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Kiwalabye Bernard v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 2001)
  • Ogalo s/o Owoura v R [1954] 24 EACA 270
  • Nalongo Naziwa Josephine v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 2014)
  • Fang Min v Belex Tours and Travel Limited (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2013)
  • Twinomugisha Alex alias Twine and 2 Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 2002)
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.