Turyahabwe & 12 Ors v Uganda [2018] UGSC 17

Supreme Court · 2018 Appeal Partly Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Second criminal appeal to the Supreme Court against conviction for murder and sentence of life imprisonment, the Court of Appeal having dismissed the appeal from the High Court conviction

Decision

Appeal partly allowed: convictions and life sentences of eight appellants (Nos. 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13) quashed and set aside; convictions and life sentences of five appellants (Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6) upheld.

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 from a murder conviction, the Supreme Court held that where numerous accused are tried together each must be specifically identified as a participant; mere presence in a mob of about two hundred people is insufficient. Because PW1's police statement and the eyewitness testimony did not specifically implicate eight appellants, their convictions were quashed. Following Bogere Moses, an alibi cannot be rejected merely because the prosecution evidence is accepted; both versions must be weighed. On re-evaluation, five appellants were properly placed at the scene and their convictions and life sentences upheld. The life sentence was not illegal, and the issue of its severity, not having been raised in the Court of Appeal, could not be raised on second appeal.

Facts

On 24 November 2007 at Buhumuriro/Kahoko, Rukungiri District, a crowd estimated at about two hundred people attacked the home of Izidoro Bayenda, destroying houses, crops and livestock. Narohoza Richard was seized, tied kandoya and beaten. Police who attended fired into the air but were overpowered and withdrew after taking the deceased's statement. The mob regrouped and resumed the assault, dragging the deceased into a banana plantation. His body, bearing deep cut wounds, was found the following day; death resulted from haemorrhagic shock due to a cut carotid artery. Police arrested a group found roasting beef near the scene. PW1 and PW2, relatives of the deceased who knew the accused, identified some of the attackers, but PW1's police statement named only some of those later charged. Originally nineteen persons were indicted; some died in custody and others were acquitted, leaving thirteen appellants who were convicted of murder, acquitted on two robbery counts, and sentenced to life imprisonment, the Court of Appeal having dismissed their appeal.

Issues

Whether the Court of Appeal failed to adequately re-evaluate the evidence, particularly the identification evidence of PW1 and PW2, and thereby reached a wrong conclusion.
Whether each appellant was sufficiently identified as a participant in the murder, given that the attack was committed by a crowd estimated at about two hundred people.
Whether the courts below properly evaluated and disproved the alibis raised by the appellants.
Whether the sentence of life imprisonment was illegal, harsh and excessive, and whether the issue of sentence could be raised in the Supreme Court when it had not been raised in the Court of Appeal.

Orders

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

Key headnotes

Evidence — Identification — Multiple Accused — Need for Individual Identification

Where several accused are jointly tried, each accused must be specifically identified as a participant in the offence; it is insufficient for eyewitnesses to identify a few of the accused and then generalise about the participation of the rest, and mere presence in a large crowd does not establish participation in the offence.

Criminal Procedure — Second Appeal — Re-evaluation of Evidence

A second appellate court does not re-evaluate the evidence or question the concurrent findings of fact of the High Court and Court of Appeal unless it is shown that they failed to evaluate or re-evaluate the evidence, or are proved manifestly wrong on findings of fact, in which case the second appellate court is obliged to do so.

Evidence — Defence of Alibi — Duty to Weigh Competing Versions

Where the prosecution adduces evidence placing the accused at the scene and the defence adduces an alibi, the court must judicially evaluate both versions and give reasons for accepting one and rejecting the other; it is a misdirection to accept the prosecution version and then hold the alibi unsustainable merely because of that acceptance.

Criminal Procedure — Sentence — Point Not Raised Before Lower Appellate Court

An issue concerning the severity of sentence that was not raised before the Court of Appeal cannot competently be raised for the first time on appeal to the Supreme Court.

Criminal Law — Sentence — Legality of Life Imprisonment for Murder

A sentence of life imprisonment for the offence of murder is not an illegal sentence, the maximum penalty prescribed for murder being death.

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.