Wakilii

Sekajja Fred v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 78 of 2020)

Supreme Court · [2023] UGSC 82 · 2023 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second criminal appeal to the Supreme Court against conviction and sentence affirmed by the Court of Appeal
Decision
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence (as varied by the Court of Appeal) upheld

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 5 (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 conviction for aggravated robbery, the Supreme Court held that a ground concerning the defence of alibi could not be entertained because it had not been raised before the Court of Appeal; an argument cannot be raised for the first time on second appeal merely by being inserted in the memorandum of appeal. On the hearsay complaint, the Court found that the essential evidence relied on — PW3's eyewitness account of the appellant boarding the victim's motorcycle and PW2's arrest of the appellant — was direct evidence, not hearsay, under section 59 of the Evidence Act. Finding no injustice and no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings, the Court dismissed the appeal.

Facts

In February 2012 at Ntawo village, Mukono District, Wampamba Jimmy, a boda-boda rider, was robbed of his motorcycle, a mobile phone and cash, and assaulted with a hammer. PW3, a fellow rider, saw the appellant at Katogo stage hire PW1 for a ride and board the victim's motorcycle. A few days later PW3 identified the appellant and contacted PW2, the Defence Secretary of the local Boda-Boda Riders' Association, who arrested the appellant; PW4 was the investigating officer. The appellant was indicted for aggravated robbery, tried and convicted by the High Court at Mukono in November 2016, and sentenced to 45 years' imprisonment. On first appeal the Court of Appeal upheld the conviction but set aside the sentence as illegal for ignoring remand time, substituting 15 years, 4 months and two weeks and ordering UGX 10,000,000 compensation. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the Court of Appeal failed to re-evaluate his alibi and relied on hearsay evidence.

Issues

  1. Whether a ground concerning the trial court's treatment of the defence of alibi was properly before the Supreme Court when it had not been raised before the Court of Appeal.
  2. Whether the evidence of PW2, PW3 and PW4 was hearsay and inadmissible under section 59 of the Evidence Act, so as to vitiate the conviction.

Orders

  • The sole ground of appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.
  • Appeal dismissed.

Key headnotes

Criminal Procedure — Second Appeal — Grounds Not Raised Before the First Appellate Court
A ground of appeal cannot be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court sitting as a second appellate court; it must first have been brought for consideration before the first appellate court whose decision is being corrected.
Criminal Procedure — Memorandum of Appeal — Rule 70(1)(a) Supreme Court Rules
The mere inclusion of a ground in the memorandum of appeal filed before the Supreme Court does not make that ground properly before the Court; appeals to the Court lie only from matters that were before the Court of Appeal.
Evidence — Hearsay — Oral Evidence Must Be Direct (s.59 Evidence Act)
Where the gist of a witness's evidence is the act of arresting the accused on information received, rather than the witness's personal knowledge of the accused's participation in the crime, that evidence is direct and is not rendered hearsay by the information that prompted the arrest.
Evidence — Hearsay — Severability of Direct and Hearsay Portions
A court may rely on the direct, admissible portions of a witness's testimony — such as what the witness personally saw and did — even where other parts of that witness's evidence are hearsay and ought not to have been admitted.
Criminal Procedure — Second Appellate Court — Limits on Re-evaluation of Evidence
The Supreme Court as a second appellate court is confined to questions of law or mixed law and fact that were before the first appellate court and is not required to re-evaluate the evidence afresh.

Legislation cited (6)

  • Penal Code Act, Cap 120 s.285
  • Penal Code Act, Cap 120 s.286(2)
  • Evidence Act, Cap 6 s.59
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.30(1)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.70(1)(a)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.63

Cases cited (6)

  • Bogere Moses and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Uganda v George William Simbwa (Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 1995)
  • Rwabugande Moses v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2014)
  • Uganda v Guster Nsubuga and Another (Criminal Appeal No. 92 of 2018)
  • Byaruhanga Fodori v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2002)
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2007)
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.