Nyangasi v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 74 of 2015)

Supreme Court · [2022] UGSC 28 · 2022 Appeal Partly Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Second criminal appeal to the Supreme Court from a Court of Appeal decision affirming a murder conviction and reducing the sentence to 25 years

Decision

Conviction upheld; the illegal 25-year sentence set aside and substituted with 24 years and 2 months' imprisonment running from the date of conviction.

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 upheld the appellant's murder conviction, holding that the Court of Appeal had properly re-evaluated the evidence of PW4 and PW5 and that inconsistencies in PW5's testimony, resolved by PW4, did not go to the root of the case; the alibi was sufficiently controverted by evidence placing the appellant at the scene. On sentence, the Court held that the Court of Appeal's failure to deduct the period spent on remand, as required by Article 23(8), rendered the 25-year sentence illegal. The Court set it aside, imposed 26 years, deducted 1 year 10 months on remand, and ordered the appellant to serve 24 years and 2 months from the date of conviction.

Facts

The appellant was tried in the High Court for murder. Prosecution evidence showed he had threatened the deceased, telling her she would be dead by midday and that nobody messes with him unpunished. Within about two hours of the threat the deceased was dead. PW5 (Fiona), the first witness at the scene, testified that she found the deceased lying down with the appellant strangling her, his hands on her neck, before he rushed away on seeing her. PW4 stated that the deceased had gone to the toilet followed by the appellant, and corroborated PW5's account, including the appellant's threatening words. The appellant raised a defence of alibi. The High Court convicted him of murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment. On first appeal the Court of Appeal sustained the conviction but reduced the sentence to 25 years' imprisonment, without deducting time spent on remand. The appellant had been remanded on 11 December 2010, with sentencing on 24 October 2012, a period of 1 year and 10 months on remand.

Issues

Whether the Court of Appeal rightly held that the trial judge was entitled to base the conviction on the evidence of PW4 and PW5 and to reject the appellant's defence of alibi.
Whether the Court of Appeal's failure to take into account the time spent on remand when sentencing rendered the sentence illegal.

Orders

Grounds 1 and 2 of the appeal dismissed.
The 25 years' imprisonment sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal set aside as illegal.
The appellant to serve 24 years and 2 months' imprisonment running from the date of conviction.

Key headnotes

Evidence — Appellate Review — Concurrent Findings of Fact on Second Appeal

A second appellate court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact where the first appellate court has properly re-evaluated the evidence adduced at trial and reached its conclusions on a sound basis.

Evidence — Inconsistencies and Contradictions — When They Do Not Vitiate a Conviction

Minor inconsistencies in a witness's evidence that do not go to the root of the case, and which are resolved by other credible evidence, do not destroy that evidence or vitiate a conviction founded upon it.

Evidence — Defence of Alibi — Burden of Proof and Displacement

An accused who raises an alibi assumes no burden of proving it; where the prosecution adduces evidence placing the accused at the scene of the crime and the alibi is thereby controverted, the defence of alibi is displaced.

Criminal Procedure — Sentencing — Failure to Deduct Time on Remand Renders Sentence Illegal

A sentencing court's failure to take into account the period an accused has spent on remand, as required by Article 23(8) of the Constitution, renders the sentence an illegality, entitling an appellate court to interfere with and re-impose the sentence.

Criminal Procedure — Second Appeal — Severity of Sentence Not a Competent Ground

Severity of sentence cannot be raised as a ground of appeal on a second appeal; an appellate court may interfere with a sentence only where it is illegal or where there has been a failure of discretion, failure to consider a material matter, or an error in principle.

Criminal Procedure — Appeals — Amended Memorandum of Appeal Filed Without Leave

A supplementary or amended memorandum of appeal lodged without the leave required by Rule 63(1) of the Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions will be struck off the record.

Legislation cited (6)

Constitution of the Republic of Uganda Article 28(3)
Constitution of the Republic of Uganda Article 23(8)
Judicature Act s.7
Judicature Act s.9(3)
Judicature Act s.11
Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions Rule 63(1)

Cases cited (17)

Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
Bogere Moses and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
Alfred Tajar v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 167 of 1969)
Sarapio Tinkamalirwe v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 1989)
Rwabugande Moses v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2014)
D. R. Pandya v R [1957] EA 336
Areet Sam v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2005)
Twinomugisha Alex (alias Twino) and Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 2002)
Sekitoleko v Uganda [1967] EA 531
Okello Geoffrey v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2014)
Ogalo s/o Owour vs Republic 1995 21 EA 126
Rep vs Mohamed Ali Jamal 1948 15 FACA 126
Kyalimpa Edward v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1995)
Kamya Johnson Wavamunno v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2000)
Aharikundira Yusitina v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2015)
Akbar Hussein Godi vs Uganda
Nashimolo Paul Kibolo v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2017)

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.