Wakilii

Mayengo v Uganda [2023] UGSC 57

Supreme Court · 2023 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second criminal appeal from the Court of Appeal's decision upholding a High Court conviction and sentence for murder
Decision
Appeal dismissed; conviction and the sentence of 26 years and 4 months' imprisonment upheld, running from the date of conviction.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full 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 against a murder conviction and a sentence of 26 years and 4 months, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts that the appellant was an adult when the offence was committed. The trial judge had properly determined age under section 107 of the Children Act, relying on unchallenged medical evidence admitted under section 66 of the Trial on Indictment Act and rejecting the mother's evidence and a birth certificate as unreliable. On sentence, the Court found no illegality and reaffirmed that under section 5(3) of the Judicature Act no appeal lies to the Supreme Court on the mere severity of sentence. The appeal was dismissed.

Facts

The appellant was indicted with others for the murder of Nakibinge Dickson, contrary to sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act, committed at Ndejje Kanyanya, Makindye Division, Wakiso District in November 2014. At trial the appellant claimed he was a minor, aged 17 and born in 1997. His mother (DW3) testified to his date of birth, and a birth certificate was tendered. The trial judge observed DW3's demeanour, found that she recalled the date only with great effort and kept confusing it with her own birth year, and rejected her evidence as untruthful; the birth certificate was found to have been specially prepared and was rejected as misleading and unreliable. Unchallenged medical evidence, admitted under section 66 of the Trial on Indictment Act, found the appellant to be 19 years old, and the indictment recorded his age as 19. The High Court convicted the appellant 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

  1. Whether the Court of Appeal failed to adequately re-evaluate the evidence relating to the appellant's age and to find that he was a minor at the time the offence was committed.
  2. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in upholding a sentence alleged to be illegal, harsh and excessive.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The sentence imposed by the trial court and confirmed by the Court of Appeal is upheld.
  • The appellant is to continue serving and complete the sentence of imprisonment running from the date of conviction, 13 July 2018.

Key headnotes

Criminal Procedure — Second Appeal — Limits on Re-evaluation of Concurrent Findings of Fact
On a second appeal, the Supreme Court will not re-evaluate the evidence or interfere with concurrent findings of fact of the trial court and first appellate court unless it is shown that the first appellate court failed to re-evaluate the evidence or was manifestly wrong on a finding of fact.
Evidence — Determination of Age under the Children Act — Medical Evidence and Assessment of Witness Demeanour
Where a person before the court appears to be under eighteen, the court must inquire into age under section 107 of the Children Act and may take any evidence including medical evidence; a trial court may rely on unchallenged medical evidence and reject a parent's testimony and a birth certificate on grounds of demeanour and apparent fabrication.
Criminal Procedure — Sentencing — No Right of Appeal to the Supreme Court on Severity of Sentence
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 lies only on a matter of law, such as 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
  • Children Act Cap 59 s.107(2)
  • Trial on Indictment Act s.66
  • Judicature Act s.5(3)
  • Constitution of Uganda 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)
  • Abelle Suman v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 66 of 2016)
  • Okello Geoffrey v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2014)
  • Tito Buhigiro v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 08 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.