Wakilii

Marani & Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 40 of 2014)

Supreme Court · [2024] UGSC 21 · 2024 Appeal Partly Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second criminal appeal to the Supreme Court against conviction and sentence, from a Court of Appeal decision upholding a murder conviction and reducing the sentence
Decision
Convictions for murder upheld; the Court of Appeal's sentencing orders set aside and each appellant re-sentenced to 27 years' imprisonment 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 murder convictions, the Supreme Court struck out the 1st appellant's intoxication defence as raised for the first time contrary to Rule 98, and upheld both convictions, holding the 2nd appellant's age (18) was an agreed fact under section 66(3) of the Trial on Indictments Act and that the concurrent findings of fact were supported by evidence. No appeal lies against severity of sentence under section 5(3) of the Judicature Act. However, the Court set aside the Court of Appeal's sentences because the remand period was lumped with mitigating factors contrary to Rwabugande and Article 23(8), and re-sentenced each appellant to 27 years' imprisonment after deducting three years' remand.

Facts

On the afternoon of 11 July 2011 at Buyasere village, Manafwa District, the deceased Kisaka Mary was killed and her husband Kuremu Calisti severely injured. The appellants were the deceased's step-sons who believed their misfortune stemmed from her witchcraft. After a pot of charms was dug up near a grave, a mob raised an alarm and began beating Kuremu, accusing him of witchcraft. When the deceased tried to flee, the 2nd appellant, together with one Simiyu, attacked her; the 2nd appellant stabbed her with a knife and the 1st appellant hit her on the head. She was led toward a police post, collapsed, and was declared dead on arrival at hospital. The appellants were charged, tried and convicted of murder under sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act and sentenced to 40 years' imprisonment each. The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions but reduced the sentences to 27 years. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court on grounds concerning intoxication, the 2nd appellant's age, re-evaluation of evidence, and the legality of the sentences.

Issues

  1. Whether the defence of intoxication was available to the 1st appellant where it was raised for the first time on a second appeal.
  2. Whether the Court of Appeal imposed an illegal sentence by failing to arithmetically deduct the remand period from the final sentence.
  3. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to re-appraise the 2nd appellant's age at the time the offence was committed.
  4. Whether the Court of Appeal failed to re-evaluate the prosecution evidence alongside the appellants' defence evidence.
  5. Whether an appeal lies to the Supreme Court against the severity of a sentence.

Orders

  • 1st Appellant (Marani Ali): the conviction of murder contrary to Sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act is upheld.
  • 1st Appellant (Marani Ali): to serve 27 years' imprisonment to run from the time of conviction.
  • 2nd Appellant (Marani Adam alias Watenya): the conviction of murder contrary to Sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act is upheld.
  • 2nd Appellant (Marani Adam alias Watenya): to serve 27 years' imprisonment to run from the time of conviction.
  • Save for the success of the grounds on sentencing, both appeals are dismissed.

Key headnotes

Criminal Procedure — Second Appeal — Grounds not raised in the lower courts
A party is barred under Rule 98 of the Rules of the Supreme Court from arguing on a second appeal a ground of appeal that was not canvassed in the lower courts.
Criminal Law — Defence of Intoxication — Section 12 Penal Code Act
Under section 12(1) of the Penal Code Act intoxication does not constitute a defence to a criminal charge except in the limited circumstances provided in that section.
Sentencing — Deduction of Remand Period — Article 23(8) of the Constitution
The period spent on remand must be arithmetically deducted from the final sentence and cannot be lumped together with common-law mitigating factors; the proper procedure is to first arrive at a final sentence and then subtract the remand period.
Criminal Procedure — Second Appeal — Concurrent findings of fact
A second appellate court is precluded from questioning concurrent findings of fact by two lower courts, and may interfere only where there was no evidence to support the finding, that being a question of law.
Criminal Procedure — Appeal — Severity of sentence — Section 5(3) Judicature Act
No appeal lies to the Supreme Court against the severity of a sentence; an appeal against sentence may be brought only on a matter of law, not including severity.
Evidence — Agreed Facts — Section 66(3) Trial on Indictments Act
A fact or document admitted or agreed in a memorandum under section 66(3) of the Trial on Indictments Act is deemed to have been duly proved and cannot be reopened on appeal.
Evidence — Re-evaluation by appellate court — Prosecution and defence considered as a whole
A court must consider the evidence as a whole and must not evaluate the prosecution case in isolation before considering whether the defence rebuts it; a first appellate court's failure to re-evaluate the evidence as a whole is an error of law correctable by the second appellate court.

Legislation cited (9)

  • Penal Code Act s.188
  • Penal Code Act s.189
  • Penal Code Act s.12(1)
  • Penal Code Act s.12(4)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 23(8)
  • Judicature Act Cap 13 s.5(3)
  • Judicature Act s.11
  • Trial on Indictments Act s.66(3)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court Rule 98

Cases cited (6)

  • Rwabugande Moses v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2014)
  • Abdullah Kamya and 4 Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2015)
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Odong Justine v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2000)
  • Mwanga Moses v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 2018)
  • Ongom John Bosco v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 21 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.