Turyahabwe & 12 Ors v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 50 of 2015)

Supreme Court · [2018] UGSC 15 · 2018 Appeal Partly Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Second criminal appeal from the Court of Appeal's dismissal of an appeal against conviction for murder and sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the High Court.

Decision

Convictions and life sentences of appellants 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 upheld; convictions of appellants 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 quashed and sentences set aside.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this 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

On second appeal the Supreme Court re-evaluated the evidence because the Court of Appeal's re-evaluation was inadequate. In a mob of over 200 people each accused had to be specifically identified as a participant; mere presence was insufficient. Eight appellants whom the principal eye-witness had not named in her police statement were not shown to have participated, so their convictions were quashed. The alibis of the remaining five were properly weighed against prosecution identification evidence and disproved; their convictions stood. The severity-of-sentence challenge failed because it was not raised before the Court of Appeal, and life imprisonment was neither illegal nor manifestly excessive for murder.

Facts

On 24 November 2007 at Buhumuriro village, Rukungiri District, a mob estimated at over 200 people attacked the home of Izidoro Bayenda, destroying and burning property and demolishing houses. The mob seized Izidoro's son, Narohoza Richard, tied him kandoya and beat him. After police arrived, took a statement and left, the mob regrouped, dragged the deceased away and assaulted him with pangas. His body was recovered the next day with deep cut wounds; death resulted from haemorrhagic shock due to a severed carotid artery. Police, who arrested a group roasting meat near the scene, relied on the screening of one eye-witness (PW1) to charge nineteen people. Two eye-witnesses, the deceased's sister (PW1) and sister-in-law (PW2), named only a few of the accused in court. Originally nineteen were indicted; some died in prison and others were acquitted. The thirteen appellants were convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, acquitted on two aggravated robbery counts, and their first appeal was dismissed.

Issues

Whether the Court of Appeal, as the first appellate court, adequately re-evaluated the evidence on record.
Whether the prosecution evidence sufficiently identified each appellant as a participant in the killing, or whether mere presence in the crowd was relied upon.
Whether the alibis raised by the appellants were properly evaluated and disproved by the prosecution.
Whether the sentence of life imprisonment was illegal, harsh and excessive and could be challenged on second appeal.

Orders

Appeals of appellants Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 against both conviction and sentence dismissed.
Appeals of appellants Nos. 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 allowed; their convictions quashed and sentences set aside.

Key headnotes

Criminal Appeals — Second Appellate Court — Re-evaluation of Evidence

A second appellate court will not re-evaluate evidence or disturb concurrent findings of fact of the trial and first appellate courts unless it is shown that the first appellate court failed to re-evaluate the evidence or that those courts are manifestly wrong on the findings of fact.

Identification — Multiple Accused in a Mob — Proof of Individual Participation

Where an offence is committed by a large crowd, each accused must be specifically identified as a participant in the commission of the offence; mere presence in the mob, without evidence of individual participation, is insufficient to sustain a conviction.

Defence of Alibi — Evaluation Against Prosecution Evidence

Where an accused raises an alibi, the court must judicially evaluate both the prosecution and defence versions and give reasons for accepting one over the other; it is a misdirection to accept the prosecution evidence and then reject the alibi merely because the prosecution version was accepted.

Sentence — Issue Not Raised Below — Interference on Appeal

An objection to the severity of a sentence that was not raised before the Court of Appeal cannot be entertained on second appeal to the Supreme Court, and an appellate court will not interfere with a sentence unless it is illegal or manifestly excessive.

Legislation cited (6)

Penal Code Act s.188
Penal Code Act s.189
Penal Code Act s.285
Penal Code Act s.286(2)
Judicature Act s.11
Judicature Act (Court of Appeal Rules) Rule 30(1)

Cases cited (2)

Areet Sam v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2005)
Bogere Moses and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1997)

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.