Wakilii

Gule v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 34 of 2019)

Supreme Court · [2024] UGSC 34 · 2024 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second criminal appeal to the Supreme Court from a Court of Appeal decision affirming a High Court conviction and life sentence for murder
Decision
Appeal dismissed; conviction and life sentence on five counts of murder upheld

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 1 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 convictions on five counts of murder, the Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal properly upheld the retracted and repudiated charge and caution statement, which a trial within a trial found voluntary and which a contemporaneous medical report (showing no injuries) confirmed was not obtained by torture. The circumstantial evidence (blood-stained shirt, muddy boots, missed examinations) formed a complete chain inconsistent with innocence, and the alibi was rightly rejected against PW1's and PW3's evidence. The appellant had no right to appeal sentence severity under section 5(3) of the Judicature Act, and life imprisonment is not amenable to Article 23(8). All grounds failed and the appeal was dismissed.

Facts

On 7 August 2006, five people were shot and killed at Kobil Petrol Station, Bugolobi, Kampala. The appellant was an employee of Security Group deployed at the station who, before being transferred to head office, had allegedly stolen money from a pump attendant, causing animosity. The prosecution's case was that on the fateful evening the appellant returned, grabbed a colleague's gun and shot the deceased, who worked as security guards and pump attendants, before disappearing. He was tracked, arrested, and confessed in a charge and caution statement to PW2. At trial he retracted the confession, alleging torture; a trial within a trial found it voluntary, supported by a medical report showing no injuries. Corroborating evidence included PW1 (his teacher), who confirmed he missed examinations on the day; PW3, to whom a dying victim and later the appellant himself attributed the shooting to his dissatisfaction; and a blood-stained shirt and muddy boots recovered from his home. He was convicted on five counts of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment on each, which the Court of Appeal upheld.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the admissibility of the appellant's retracted and repudiated charge and caution statement.
  2. Whether the conviction could be sustained on the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution.
  3. Whether the appellant's defence of alibi was properly evaluated and rightly rejected.
  4. Whether the appellant had a right to appeal the life imprisonment sentence on grounds of severity, and whether that sentence was amenable to Article 23(8) of the Constitution.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • The appellant shall serve the sentence upheld by the Court of Appeal.

Key headnotes

Evidence — Confessions — Retracted or Repudiated Confession — Admissibility and corroboration
A retracted or repudiated confession may found a conviction only where the court, having conducted a trial within a trial, is fully satisfied in all the circumstances of the case that the confession is true; corroboration by independent evidence is desirable but not required in law, and the court may act on the confession alone.
Evidence — Confessions — Allegation of torture — Effect of contemporaneous medical examination
Where an accused alleges that a confession was extracted by torture, a contemporaneous medical examination disclosing no injuries is cogent evidence supporting a finding that the confession was voluntarily obtained.
Evidence — Circumstantial Evidence — Inference of guilt — Complete chain test
A conviction founded on circumstantial evidence is justified only where the incriminating circumstances are cogently established and form a chain so complete that the only reasonable inference is the guilt of the accused, the evidence being inconsistent with any hypothesis of innocence.
Criminal Procedure — Defence of Alibi — Burden of proof and duty to evaluate both versions
An accused who raises an alibi assumes no burden of proving it; the prosecution must adduce evidence placing the accused at the scene of the crime, and the court must judicially evaluate both the prosecution and defence versions and give reasons for accepting one over the other.
Criminal Procedure — Second Appeal — Severity of Sentence — Judicature Act s.5(3)
Under section 5(3) of the Judicature Act, an appellant on a second appeal to the Supreme Court has no right of appeal against the severity of a sentence; an appeal against sentence lies only on a matter of law.
Constitutional Law — Sentencing — Life Imprisonment — Application of Article 23(8) and remand deduction
A sentence of life imprisonment is not amenable to Article 23(8) of the Constitution, because that provision applies only to a quantifiable term of imprisonment from which the period spent on remand can be deducted; deduction of remand from a life sentence is therefore inapplicable.

Legislation cited (6)

  • Penal Code Act s.188
  • Penal Code Act s.189
  • Judicature Act (cap 13) s.5(3)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.30(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.23(8)
  • Prisons Act

Cases cited (23)

  • Hassan Kasule v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1987)
  • Baitwabusa Francis v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2015)
  • Kazarwe Henry v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2015)
  • Bogere Moses & Another v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Opolot Justine & Another v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2004)
  • Mohamed Mukasa v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 1995)
  • Mamudini Mukama v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 1995)
  • Mawazi Mallinga v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 2018)
  • Tuwamoi v Uganda [1967] EA 84
  • Matovu Musa Kassim v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2002)
  • Festo Androa Asenua & Another v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1998)
  • Simon Musoke v Republic (1958) EA 715
  • Bonyo Abdul v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 2011)
  • Musede Nankya v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2018)
  • Magezi Gad v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2014)
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Amos Binuge & Others v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 1989)
  • Ramesh Bhai & Another v State of Rajasthan, Criminal Appeal Nos. 868-869 of 2004 (Supreme Court of India)
  • Byaruhanga Fodori v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2002); [2005] 1 ULSR 12
  • Sharma & Kumar v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 2000)
  • Lt. Jonas Ainomugisha v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 2015)
  • Sekitoleko Vs Uganda [1958] EA 531
  • Kato Kajubi v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 20 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.