Wakilii

Kyaterekera v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 4 of 2016)

Supreme Court · [2019] UGSC 95 · 2019 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second criminal appeal to the Supreme Court against conviction and sentence for murder, from the Court of Appeal's confirmation of a High Court conviction
Decision
Appeal dismissed; conviction for murder and sentence of 30 years' imprisonment upheld

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 3 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 murder conviction, the Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal had properly re-evaluated the identification evidence: the offence occurred in daylight and several witnesses observed the appellant at close range over a sufficient period, so the trial court could safely convict after warning itself of the need for caution. The alibi was displaced because the prosecution placed the appellant at the scene on the evidence as a whole. On sentence, because the Court of Appeal decided before Rwabugande, it sufficed that the trial court demonstrably took the remand period into account; arithmetic deduction was not required. The appeal was dismissed and the conviction and 30-year sentence upheld.

Facts

On 24 December 2003 the deceased, Hope Christine, the appellant's former girlfriend, was at a bar in Ibanda town with two other women. The appellant arrived, had drinks and left. After the deceased returned to her residence, the appellant followed her and stabbed her in the chest with a knife before fleeing; attempts to arrest him failed. As he fled he dropped clothing, picked up by a pursuing witness, in which were found two photographs of the appellant and the deceased. The deceased died shortly afterwards from the stab wound. Earlier that day the appellant had reported the deceased to police, alleging she had stolen 800,000 shillings from him. Prosecution witnesses had observed and interacted with the appellant at the bar and identified him; one witness picked him out at an identification parade. The appellant was arrested in Jinja on 8 March 2006 and indicted for murder. At trial he testified on oath, raised an alibi that he had relocated to Kampala and then Jinja, and called no witnesses.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in rejecting the appellant's sworn defence of alibi and relying on prosecution identification evidence said to be tainted with inconsistencies to uphold the conviction.
  2. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the 30-year sentence without arithmetically deducting the period spent on remand and without properly considering the mitigating factors.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The decision of the Court of Appeal is upheld.

Key headnotes

Criminal Law & Procedure — Appeals — Duty of a Second Appellate Court
On a second appeal the duty of the appellate court is to determine whether the first appellate court properly re-evaluated the evidence before reaching its conclusion, interfering only in the clearest of cases where that re-evaluation was unsatisfactory.
Evidence — Identification — Conditions Favouring Correct Identification
Where identification is made over a sufficient period in satisfactory conditions by witnesses in close proximity to the accused, a court may safely convict on identification evidence, provided it warns itself of the special need for caution to exclude the possibility of mistaken identity.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Defence of Alibi — Burden of Proof
An accused who raises an alibi assumes no burden to prove it; the prosecution must place the accused at the scene of the crime by evaluating the evidence as a whole, and any doubt as to the alibi must be resolved in the accused's favour.
Evidence — Contradictions and Inconsistencies — Effect on Witness Testimony
Major contradictions and inconsistencies result in rejection of a witness's evidence unless satisfactorily explained, while minor ones lead to rejection only where they point to deliberate untruthfulness; inconsistencies attributable to the lapse of time and not going to the root of the case are excusable.
Evidence — Number of Witnesses — Prosecution's Discretion to Call Witnesses
It is the prosecution's prerogative to decide which witnesses to call, and under section 133 of the Evidence Act a plurality of witnesses is not required to prove a single fact.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Sentencing — Treatment of Period Spent on Remand
For sentences passed before the decision in Rwabugande, it is sufficient that the sentencing court demonstrably took the period spent on remand into account; arithmetic deduction of the remand period is not required, and a court cannot be bound to follow a principle established after its decision.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Penal Code Act s.189
  • Evidence Act s.133
  • Criminal Procedure Code Act Cap.116 s.34(1)
  • Supreme Court Rules r.2(2)

Cases cited (14)

  • Alfred Tajar v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 167 of 1969)
  • Kifamunte vs. Uganda, (supra)
  • Bogere Charles vs. Uganda, (supra)
  • Ongom John Bosco v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2007)
  • Abdullah Nabulere & Anor v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 1978)
  • Uganda v Dusman Sabuni (1981) HCB 1
  • Bogere Moses & Anor v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Rwabugande Moses v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2014)
  • Tukumuhebwa David Junior & Anor v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 59 of 2016)
  • Kizito Senkula v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2001)
  • Kobuye Senyawo v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 2002)
  • Katende Ahomed v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 2004)
  • Bukenya Joseph v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2010)
  • Abelle Assuman v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 66 of 2016)
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.