Mayengo v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 50 of 2021)

Supreme Court · [2023] UGSC 54 · 2023 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Second criminal appeal to the Supreme Court from the Court of Appeal's confirmation of a High Court murder conviction and sentence

Decision

Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence of 26 years and 4 months' imprisonment upheld, to run from the date of conviction (13 July 2018)

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 a second appeal against a murder conviction and sentence, the Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal had properly re-evaluated the evidence on the appellant's age. The trial judge had rejected the mother's testimony and a purported birth certificate as unreliable, relying instead on unchallenged medical evidence admitted under s.66 of the Trial on Indictments Act showing the appellant was 19 at the time of the offence; the appellate courts' concurrent findings of fact could not be disturbed. On sentence, s.5(3) of the Judicature Act permits an appeal to the Supreme Court only on a matter of law, not on severity, and no illegality was shown. The appeal was dismissed.

Facts

The appellant was indicted for murder contrary to sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act, it being alleged that on the night of 3 November 2014 at Ndejje Kanyanya, Makindye Division, Wakiso District, he and others murdered Nakibinge Dickson. At trial, the appellant claimed he was a minor, testifying he was 17, born in 1997. His mother (DW3) gave evidence of his date of birth, and a birth certificate was tendered. The trial judge found the mother recalled the date only with great effort, characteristic of one who had crammed it, repeatedly confusing 1979 (her own year) with 1997, and held the birth certificate to be specially prepared, misleading and unreliable. Unchallenged medical evidence admitted under section 66 of the Trial on Indictments Act, and the appellant's declared age on the indictment, indicated he was 19 at the time of the offence. The High Court convicted him and sentenced him to 26 years and 4 months' imprisonment after deducting time on remand. The Court of Appeal upheld both conviction and sentence.

Issues

Whether the Court of Appeal failed to adequately re-evaluate the material evidence relating to the appellant's age and erred in not finding that he was a minor at the time the offence was committed.
Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding a sentence of 26 years and 4 months' imprisonment that was alleged to be illegal, harsh and excessive.

Orders

Ground one fails.
Ground two fails.
The sentence as imposed by the trial court and confirmed by the Court of Appeal is upheld.
The appeal is dismissed.
The appellant should continue to serve and complete the sentence of imprisonment from the date of conviction, 13th July 2018.

Key headnotes

Criminal Procedure — Second Appeal — Concurrent Findings of Fact

A second appellate court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact of the trial court and the first appellate court unless it is shown that the first appellate court failed to re-evaluate the evidence or was manifestly wrong; absent such a demonstration, the second appellate court, which has not seen the witnesses, cannot disturb those findings.

Evidence — Determination of Age — Children Act s.107 — Medical Evidence over Oral and Documentary Proof

In an inquiry into age under section 107 of the Children Act the court may take any evidence including medical evidence; where the trial judge, having observed the demeanour of an oral witness, rejects her testimony and a documentary birth certificate as unreliable, the court is entitled to rely on unchallenged medical evidence of age admitted under section 66 of the Trial on Indictments Act.

Criminal Procedure — Sentencing — Right of Appeal to Supreme Court — Judicature Act s.5(3)

Section 5(3) of the Judicature Act does not permit an appellant to appeal to the Supreme Court against the severity of a sentence; an appeal against sentence to that court lies only on a matter of law, such as an illegality in the sentence.

Criminal Procedure — Sentencing — Commencement of Custodial Term

A custodial sentence runs from the date of conviction rather than from the date the sentence is announced, and a sentence so computed discloses no illegality.

Legislation cited (9)

Penal Code Act s.188
Penal Code Act s.189
Children Act Cap 59 s.2
Children Act Cap 59 s.107(1)
Children Act Cap 59 s.107(2)
Trial on Indictments Act s.66
Judicature Act s.5(3)
Constitution Article 23(8)
Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions 2013 Regulation 15(2)

Cases cited (6)

Karobe Joseph v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 243 of 2018)
Livingstone Kakooza v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 1993)
Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
Tito Buhigiro v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2014)
Abelle Suman v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 66 of 2016)
Okello Geoffrey v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2014)

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.