Nahabwe v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application 16 of 2020)

Supreme Court · [2021] UGSC 41 · 2021 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Application to the Supreme Court for a certificate of importance to lodge an intended third appeal, the Court of Appeal having refused to certify the matter.

Decision

Application for a certificate of importance dismissed; the applicant is not permitted to lodge the intended third appeal.

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

The Supreme Court dismissed an application for a certificate of importance to file a third appeal. The proposed question — whether a second appellate court may accept the first appellate court's conclusions without adequately scrutinising the evidence — was held not to transcend the applicant's particular case or bear significantly on the public interest. The law governing a second appellate court's treatment of concurrent findings of fact, and the assessment of identification evidence of a single witness, is firmly settled by clear precedent, leaving no state of uncertainty requiring resolution. The applicant was found merely dissatisfied with concurrent findings of fact, which is not a proper basis for certification. The application was accordingly dismissed.

Facts

The applicant was convicted by the Chief Magistrate's Court of Buganda Road of attempted murder contrary to section 204(a) of the Penal Code Act and conspiracy to commit a felony contrary to section 390, and sentenced to concurrent terms of eight and three years' imprisonment. On first appeal the High Court upheld the convictions and added a compensation order of UGX 30,000,000. On second appeal the Court of Appeal upheld the convictions and custodial sentences but quashed the compensation order. Intending a third appeal, the applicant applied to the Court of Appeal for a certificate of importance, which was dismissed for want of merit. She then applied to the Supreme Court for the certificate, contending that her intended appeal raised a question of great public or general importance, namely whether a second appellate court may accept the first appellate court's conclusions without adequately scrutinising the evidence, including identification evidence of a single witness. The respondent opposed the application, arguing the question was confined to the applicant's case and was already settled by precedent.

Issues

Whether the applicant satisfied the requirements for the grant of a certificate of importance entitling her to lodge a third appeal to the Supreme Court.
Whether the question whether a second appellate court may merely accept the conclusions of the first appellate court without adequately scrutinising the evidence on record is a matter of great public or general importance.

Orders

The orders and certificate sought are declined.
The application is dismissed.

Key headnotes

Appeals — Certificate of Importance — Requirements for a Third Appeal to the Supreme Court

To obtain a certificate of importance for a third appeal, the intending appellant must demonstrate that the issue to be canvassed transcends the circumstances of the particular case and has a significant bearing on the public interest; a matter confined to the applicant's own case does not qualify.

Appeals — Certificate of Importance — Supreme Court's Overall Duty to See Justice Done

When considering an application under section 5(5) of the Judicature Act and rule 38(1)(b) of the Rules of the Supreme Court, the Court exercising its overall duty to see that justice is done is not bound by the restrictions placed on the Court of Appeal and is not confined to the matters the Court of Appeal considered when refusing a certificate.

Appeals — Role of a Second Appellate Court — Concurrent Findings of Fact

A second appellate court is not expected to re-evaluate the evidence on record or to question concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts unless, in the clearest of cases, the lower courts failed to evaluate the evidence or were manifestly wrong on findings of fact.

Appeals — Certificate of Importance — Apprehension of Miscarriage of Justice and Settled Law

Mere apprehension of a miscarriage of justice is not a proper basis for certification, and where the law on a proposed question is firmly established by clear precedent there is no state of uncertainty warranting the grant of a certificate of importance.

Legislation cited (14)

Judicature Act s.5(5)
Judicature Act s.6(2)
Penal Code Act s.204(a)
Penal Code Act s.390
Rules of the Supreme Court r.2(2)
Rules of the Supreme Court r.38(1)(b)
Rules of the Supreme Court r.42(1)
Rules of the Supreme Court r.42(2)
Rules of the Supreme Court r.43(1)
Rules of the Supreme Court r.50(1)
Rules of the Supreme Court r.50(2)
Court of Appeal Rules r.32(2)
Constitution Article 132(3)
Constitution Article 163(4)(b)

Cases cited (11)

Hermanus Phillipus Styen vs. Giovanni Gnecci-Ruscone, (Supreme Court Criminal Application No. 4 of 2012)
Uganda v Damian Akankwasa (Court of Appeal Miscellaneous Application No. 58 of 2019)
Abdullah Nabulere and Another v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 1978)
Bogere Moses v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
Namuddu Christine v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Application No. 3 of 1999)
Farook Aziz (Administrator of Estate of Salma Kabasingo) v Abdalla Abdu Makuru (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2002)
Sophatia Beithi and 3 Others v Nangobi Jane and 2 Others (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 7 of 2015)
Areet Sam v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2005)
Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
R v Hassan Bin Said (1942) 9 EACA 62
Bogere Charles v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 1996)

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.